(June 30, 2014 at 11:47 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: @ Orangebox

(1) You said:

What external confirmation do you have of that? Being "given belief" is an internal feeling and not an external confirmation. It is exactly what believers in other religions have. So why not Islam? Surely their internal confirmation is just as valid as yours. Your choice is cultural nothing more.

Someone giving something to me is by definition external (it is an external entity operating upon me). If I were to give something to myself, that would be internal. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your definition of 'external', please define.

What event or happening that you can show to be outside yourself gave you the belief. As far as I can tell from what you say, you looked inside, saw god and then declared god to be an external force. What specifically happened outside of your head to give you belief in god?

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: (2) As for Biblical contradictions, there are whole articles devoted to that:

[email]http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html[/email]
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/b...radictions

Quote:There are whole books (Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Haley, John) and webslte articles (carm.org, apologeticspress.org, etc) devoted to debunking so-called Biblical contradictions.

So there are and I've read some of them. Never seen one that wasn't B.S. though.
For example, please explain when Jesus was actually born since Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6-7 CE) which is ten years after Herod died in 4 BCE. Was he born twice?

The genealogies for Jesus in Mathew and Luke are so different that they hardly contain a single name in common. Further both are through Joseph which makes no sense at all if Jesus were born of a virgin. --apologists suggest that one of those genealogies was Mary's but that's not what either gospel says.

I could go on but two is plenty to start. And we haven't even left the birth scene.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Read the Gospels side-by-side sometime. You'll find they don't agree. http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/Shred...ospels.htm

Quote:Read: One Perfect Life by John MacArthur. You'll find they do agree.

Good maybe you can use him to answer the above questions.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: What does that have to do with whether the Old Testament is largely negated by the New Testament?

Quote:Not negated, fulfilled.

Name one prophesy clearly stated in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament. Give me the verses.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: (4) Lets try your syllogism again:

A says there is a god and some of his truth is found in X.
B says there is a god and some of his truth is found in X.
A and B contain some internal contradictions and also sometimes contradict X.
X does not contradict itself.
Therefore X is true.

Better? It still doesn't follow logically.

Quote:You continue to misrepresent my argument by adding your own philosophical bias ("contain some internal contradictions') to my argument. I did not include this proposition in my argument. Please represent my argument accurately or if you don't understand it, ask for clarification.

OK, clarify. Let's see your syllogism. Don't just say I haven't gotten yours right. Supply yours.

(June 30, 2014 at 11:47 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(June 27, 2014 at 1:38 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Judaism doesn’t give a crap what Romans says, seeing as it’s part of the NT.

Your question was why am I not a Jew.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:38 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: You said that the Bible was logically consistent internally (debatable). So is the Torah. You can’t use a part of your religion as “internally consistent” as then use it to invalidate another religion which doesn’t use that part at all.

Christianity does not invalidate Judaism, but rather fulfills it.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: @ Orangebox

(1) You said:


What external confirmation do you have of that? Being "given belief" is an internal feeling and not an external confirmation. It is exactly what believers in other religions have. So why not Islam? Surely their internal confirmation is just as valid as yours. Your choice is cultural nothing more.

Someone giving something to me is by definition external (it is an external entity operating upon me). If I were to give something to myself, that would be internal. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your definition of 'external', please define.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: (2) As for Biblical contradictions, there are whole articles devoted to that:

[email]http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html[/email]
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/b...radictions

There are whole books (Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Haley, John) and webslte articles (carm.org, apologeticspress.org, etc) devoted to debunking so-called Biblical contradictions.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Read the Gospels side-by-side sometime. You'll find they don't agree. http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/Shred...ospels.htm

Read: One Perfect Life by John MacArthur. You'll find they do agree.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: What does that have to do with whether the Old Testament is largely negated by the New Testament?

Not negated, fulfilled.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: (4) Lets try your syllogism again:

A says there is a god and some of his truth is found in X.
B says there is a god and some of his truth is found in X.
A and B contain some internal contradictions and also sometimes contradict X.
X does not contradict itself.
Therefore X is true.

Better? It still doesn't follow logically.

You continue to misrepresent my argument by adding your own philosophical bias ("contain some internal contradictions') to my argument. I did not include this proposition in my argument. Please represent my argument accurately or if you don't understand it, ask for clarification.

I'm not going to bother debunking your argument, the whole conversation was about you saying 'The bible is right, therefore the christian god exists and christianity is right'

(July 1, 2014 at 12:33 am)Jenny A Wrote: What event or happening that you can show to be outside yourself gave you the belief. As far as I can tell from what you say, you looked inside, saw god and then declared god to be an external force. What specifically happened outside of your head to give you belief in god?

The Bible.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: For example, please explain when Jesus was actually born since Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6-7 CE) which is ten years after Herod died in 4 BCE. Was he born twice?

The genealogies for Jesus in Mathew and Luke are so different that they hardly contain a single name in common. Further both are through Joseph which makes no sense at all if Jesus were born of a virgin. --apologists suggest that one of those genealogies was Mary's but that's not what either gospel says.

I will get back to you on this.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Name one prophesy clearly stated in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament. Give me the verses.

Daniel 9:25-26

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: OK, clarify. Let's see your syllogism. Don't just say I haven't gotten yours right. Supply yours.

You asked why believe the Bible over the Koran (or the book of mormon). I responded that the Koran asserts that the Biblical God is true, then goes on to deny Him. It is due to this logical inconsistency that I would choose Christianity.

Islam says the Biblical God is the true God.
The Biblical God says Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Islam says that God has no son.

The above set of propositions is a logical inconsistency. Therefore I would choose Christianity over Islam.

(July 1, 2014 at 9:27 am)blackout94 Wrote: I'm not going to bother debunking your argument, the whole conversation was about you saying 'The bible is right, therefore the christian god exists and christianity is right'

Not you too?

I answered the question asked in post #22 in post #21. This is the conversation we are having. Reread post #21.

The question isn't: Why choose God over no god, but rather: why choose Christianity over the koran or the book of mormon? Your assertion addresses the former, we are talking about the latter.

(July 1, 2014 at 1:33 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 12:33 am)Jenny A Wrote: What event or happening that you can show to be outside yourself gave you the belief. As far as I can tell from what you say, you looked inside, saw god and then declared god to be an external force. What specifically happened outside of your head to give you belief in god?

The Bible.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: For example, please explain when Jesus was actually born since Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6-7 CE) which is ten years after Herod died in 4 BCE. Was he born twice?

The genealogies for Jesus in Mathew and Luke are so different that they hardly contain a single name in common. Further both are through Joseph which makes no sense at all if Jesus were born of a virgin. --apologists suggest that one of those genealogies was Mary's but that's not what either gospel says.

I will get back to you on this.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Name one prophesy clearly stated in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament. Give me the verses.

Daniel 9:25-26

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: OK, clarify. Let's see your syllogism. Don't just say I haven't gotten yours right. Supply yours.

You asked why believe the Bible over the Koran (or the book of mormon). I responded that the Koran asserts that the Biblical God is true, then goes on to deny Him. It is due to this logical inconsistency that I would choose Christianity.

Islam says the Biblical God is the true God.
The Biblical God says Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Islam says that God has no son.

The above set of propositions is a logical inconsistency. Therefore I would choose Christianity over Islam.

(July 1, 2014 at 9:27 am)blackout94 Wrote: I'm not going to bother debunking your argument, the whole conversation was about you saying 'The bible is right, therefore the christian god exists and christianity is right'

Not you too?

I answered the question asked in post #22 in post #21. This is the conversation we are having. Reread post #21.

The question isn't: Why choose God over no god, but rather: why choose Christianity over the koran or the book of mormon? Your assertion addresses the former, we are talking about the latter.

If you're going to bring up the consistency argument as one of the reasons you 'chose' Christianity over Mormonism or Islam, I'm going to have to bring up Judaism again. There are explciit contradictions between the Old and New Testament inside your supposedly internally consistent choice of faith. The Torah at least doesn't have all that extra messiah crap thrown on. If consistency is the reason you're stating for choosing your faith over others, why not 'choose' Judaism?

(July 1, 2014 at 1:33 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 12:33 am)Jenny A Wrote: What event or happening that you can show to be outside yourself gave you the belief. As far as I can tell from what you say, you looked inside, saw god and then declared god to be an external force. What specifically happened outside of your head to give you belief in god?

The Bible.

Well the Bible is external to you. No doubt about that. And it certainly says god exists. But given the fact that it also says the world was created in six days and that there is essentially no historical corroboration for anything in it except bits of Kings and Chronicles, I wouldn't count it as evidence. Is the Book of the Dead evidence of Ra?

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: For example, please explain when Jesus was actually born since Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6-7 CE) which is ten years after Herod died in 4 BCE. Was he born twice?

The genealogies for Jesus in Mathew and Luke are so different that they hardly contain a single name in common. Further both are through Joseph which makes no sense at all if Jesus were born of a virgin. --apologists suggest that one of those genealogies was Mary's but that's not what either gospel says.

Quote:I will get back to you on this.

No problem, it's a chore apologists have been working without success on for many years.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Name one prophesy clearly stated in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament. Give me the verses.

Quote:Daniel 9:25-26

Okay, let's look at what Daniel had to say and when he is supposed have said it:

Quote:In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian[b] kingdom— 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the Lord given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.

Daniel 9:1-2

So this prophesy was made during the Babylonian captivity. After much prayer concerning the misfortunes of Israel and the times god had both rewarded and punished Daniel, Gabriel came to Daniel and said:

Quote: “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish[d] transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’[i] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

I've italicized the part you say was fulfilled in the New Testament.

You better explain just what you think this means. I don't think it in anyway clearly describes Jesus' coming and I'd like to know why you think it does. Or maybe you think it's John the Baptist? But supposing just for argument the Jesus is the "Anointed One": 7 sevens is 49 and 62 sevens is 434 bringing us to a total of 496. If that's 496 years, the Anointed one showed up way too soon after the beginning of the restoration of Jerusalem. If sevens mean weeks than it's 69 weeks (a little more than a year), than the Annointed One was very late.

Then again maybe it's not time at all. Whatever it is it's not very clear.

Jesus was put to death. But I wouldn't say he had nothing afterwords. Would you? There's been war since, but not especially more than there was before the prophesy.

The point is that it's all about as clear as mud. Worse than a horoscope.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: OK, clarify. Let's see your syllogism. Don't just say I haven't gotten yours right. Supply yours.

Quote:You asked why believe the Bible over the Koran (or the book of mormon). I responded that the Koran asserts that the Biblical God is true, then goes on to deny Him. It is due to this logical inconsistency that I would choose Christianity.

Islam says the Biblical God is the true God.
The Biblical God says Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Islam says that God has no son.

The above set of propositions is a logical inconsistency. Therefore I would choose Christianity over Islam.

Islam says the Biblical god is the true god. But it specifically says Jesus is merely a prophet. That contradicts the Bible, but is not contradictory in and of itself. It simply says the Bible describes the real god but got some things wrong about him. Here let me tell you the real story.

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: For example, please explain when Jesus was actually born since Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6-7 CE) which is ten years after Herod died in 4 BCE. Was he born twice?

Mathew doesn't say Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. He said that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod. Herod Antipater was named to the throne after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC and died in 39 AD.

(July 1, 2014 at 4:11 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: For example, please explain when Jesus was actually born since Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6-7 CE) which is ten years after Herod died in 4 BCE. Was he born twice?

Mathew doesn't say Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. He said that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod. Herod Antipater was named to the throne after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC and died in 39 AD.

Actually..Herod the Great's sons were never kings.. they were Tetrarchs, governors.

(July 1, 2014 at 4:17 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 4:11 pm)Lek Wrote: Mathew doesn't say Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. He said that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod. Herod Antipater was named to the throne after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC and died in 39 AD.

Actually..Herod the Great's sons were never kings.. they were Tetrarchs, governors.

Whatever you want to call him, he became ruler over that part of the kingdom after Herod the Great died.

(July 1, 2014 at 1:33 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: You asked why believe the Bible over the Koran (or the book of mormon). I responded that the Koran asserts that the Biblical God is true, then goes on to deny Him. It is due to this logical inconsistency that I would choose Christianity.

Islam says the Biblical God is the true God.
The Biblical God says Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Islam says that God has no son.

The above set of propositions is a logical inconsistency. Therefore I would choose Christianity over Islam.

.............

That's not a logical inconsistency. Nowhere does the quran "deny god" - in fact - that would be the worst possible thing a muslim could do...precisely because the quran is all about the opposite, the affirmation of god. What you're talking about is a dispute between ideological claims. The "biblical god" says nothing. If you wanted to actually consider this you would have taken the time to express it accurately so that your conclusions might have value. Would you like me to correct that statement or can you handle it?

What...the...fuck?

(July 1, 2014 at 4:11 pm)Lek Wrote: Mathew doesn't say Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. He said that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod. Herod Antipater was named to the throne after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC and died in 39 AD.

Really? Maybe you mean Herod Antipas because it looks like Antipater didn't make it past 4 BC to me. Archelaus became Herod the Great's heir as king. Antipas became a Tetrarch over some of Herod's kingdom. Pardon the pun but there is a great difference between a Tetrarch and a King.

Quote:Antipater II (c. 46 – 4 BC) was Herod the Great's first-born son, his only child by his first wife Doris. He was named after his paternal grandfather Antipater the Idumaean. He and his mother were exiled after Herod divorced her between 43 BC and 40 BC to marry Mariamne I. However, he was recalled following Mariamne's fall in 29 BC and in 13 BC Herod made him his first heir in his will. He retained this position even when Alexandros and Aristobulos (Herod's sons by Mariamne) rose in the royal succession in 12 BC, and even became exclusive successor to the throne after their execution in 7 BC (with Herod Philip I in second place).

However, in 5 BC Antipater was brought before Publius Quinctilius Varus, then Roman governor of Syria, charged with the intended murder of his father Herod. Antipater was found guilty by Varus; however, due to Antipater's high rank, it was necessary for Caesar Augustus to approve of the recommended sentence of death. After the guilty verdict, Antipater's position as exclusive successor was removed and granted to Herod Antipas. Once the sentence had approval from Augustus in 4 BC, Antipater was then executed, and Archelaus (from the marriage with Malthace) was made heir in his father's will as king over Herod's entire kingdom (with Antipas and Philip as Tetrarchs over certain territories).

Wikipedia on Antipater Son of Herod the Great See also Online Encyclopedia Britanica.

{added a couple hours later}--- Now that I think of it, you should know if you are going to argue that is was not Herod the Great at the time of Jesus' birth that you will have a hard time squaring that with Mathew's account of the fight to Egypt:

Quote: So he [Joseph] got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Mathew 2:14-15 It is Herod the Great that died shortly not Antipas.