Disproving the christian (and muslim) god

[I_am_not_mafia]

If her facial features are to scale then she's got really wide eyes and an elongated head.

[The Grand Nudger]

[Aegon]

Do we only consult historians when we agree with them?

Assuming you're talking about Nefertiti, this is not a case of disagreement, you have to ignore plenty of sources from antiquity to conclude that Nefertiti was a white woman.



Those are clearly African features if I ever saw any.

I see. I'm saying OP's statement is historically accurate, yet you've disputed it. Half of the OT is ripped straight from earlier Mesopotamian mythology. You'd have to ignore quite a bit to believe otherwise.

[GrandizerII]

The Old Testament makes no prediction that the Messiah would be born of a virgin woman,

You mean other than the obvious one?

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. - Isaiah 7:14

Yes, other than this one, which is a bad translation of the Hebrew verse. Leave it to "Matthew" to misinterpret the verse just to promote a later Christian doctrine which wasn't adhered to by Paul or "Mark".

Besides, this had nothing to do with a far future Messianic event. Perhaps you should read the verse itself within its immediate context.

How about this one:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. - Genesis 3:15

Not good enough. Too vague, and it's not even a Messianic verse. Again, ask the Jews.

Here God is speaking to the serpent and he mentions the seed of the woman, normally women do not have seed, the seed comes from the man. God gave the woman a seed, which was Jesus Christ through the virgin birth.

I don't care what your pastor told you about this verse last Sunday. You're misinterpreting words, and in doing so, misinterpreting the verses containing these words. Just to suit your theological agenda.

be crucified for our sins,

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5

And yet nothing about the act of crucifixion itself. But putting that aside, it's not challenging for anyone claiming to be the Messiah to be seen as having fulfilled such a passage once they're dead. So even if the whole passage was about the Messiah, and this is debatable among the Jews, it's not exclusive/risky enough to make for a good potential prophecy.

and then rise from the dead three days later.

For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. - Psalm 16:10

In other words he'd raise hum up before his body started to decay, which is within 72 hours (3 days).

Dude, quit insulting my intelligence.

If you don't believe me, again, ask the Jews. They would know the Tanakh better than you do.

Who exactly do you thing wrote the New Testament?

Mostly Gentiles. You know that, right?

[chimp3]

and then rise from the dead three days later.

For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. - Psalm 16:10

In other words he'd raise hum up before his body started to decay, which is within 72 hours (3 days).

You start to decay the moment you die. Some times before you die. Ever hear of necrosis?

[Huggy Bear]

You mean other than the obvious one?

Yes, other than this one, which is a bad translation of the Hebrew verse. Leave it to "Matthew" to misinterpret the verse just to promote a later Christian doctrine which wasn't adhered to by Paul or "Mark".

Besides, this had nothing to do with a far future Messianic event. Perhaps you should read the verse itself within its immediate context.

How about this one:

Not good enough. Too vague, and it's not even a Messianic verse. Again, ask the Jews.

Here God is speaking to the serpent and he mentions the seed of the woman, normally women do not have seed, the seed comes from the man. God gave the woman a seed, which was Jesus Christ through the virgin birth.

I don't care what your pastor told you about this verse last Sunday. You're misinterpreting words, and in doing so, misinterpreting the verses containing these words. Just to suit your theological agenda.



And yet nothing about the act of crucifixion itself. But putting that aside, it's not challenging for anyone claiming to be the Messiah to be seen as having fulfilled such a passage once they're dead. So even if the whole passage was about the Messiah, and this is debatable among the Jews, it's not exclusive/risky enough to make for a good potential prophecy.

In other words he'd raise hum up before his body started to decay, which is within 72 hours (3 days).

Dude, quit insulting my intelligence.

Who exactly do you thing wrote the New Testament?

Mostly Gentiles. You know that, right?

*emphasis mine*
No it was written by Jews. Paul who was the foremost writer of the new testament was a Jew and former Pharisee, was taught by Gamaliel who a leading authority in the Sanhedrin, and therefore highly educated in Jewish laws and customs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamaliel

In the Talmud, Gamaliel is described as bearing the titles Nasi and Rabban (our master), as the president of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem; although some dispute this, it is not doubted that he held a senior position in the highest court in Jerusalem. Gamaliel holds a reputation in the Mishnah for being one of the greatest teachers in all the annals of Judaism:

You stated:

If you don't believe me, again, ask the Jews. They would know the Tanakh better than you do.

Paul's a Jew, does he not count?


On a side note, why do atheists go into denial mode every time they are presented with evidence?

[I_am_not_mafia]

On a side note, why do atheists go into denial mode every time they are presented with evidence?

I don't know, it so rarely happens.

[GrandizerII]

Paul's a Jew, does he not count?

Hence, why I said "mostly".

On a side note, why do atheists go into denial mode every time they are presented with evidence?

What evidence? I've been presented with bad interpretations of Bible verses and of Wikipedia passages. I didn't see any evidence.

[Huggy Bear]

In other words he'd raise hum up before his body started to decay, which is within 72 hours (3 days).

You start to decay the moment you die. Some times before you die. Ever hear of necrosis?

If you want to get technical, then the food you eat is in the process of decaying, but at what point is it considered no longer fit to eat?


http://www.aftermath.com/content/human-decomposition

24-72 hours after death — the internal organs decompose.

[chimp3]

You start to decay the moment you die. Some times before you die. Ever hear of necrosis?

If you want to get technical, then the food you eat is in the process of decaying, but at what point is it considered no longer fit to eat?


http://www.aftermath.com/content/human-decomposition

24-72 hours after death — the internal organs decompose.

Stage One: Autolysis

The first stage of human decomposition is called autolysis, or self-digestion, and begins immediately after death. As soon as blood circulation and respiration stop, the body has no way of getting oxygen or removing wastes. Excess carbon dioxide causes an acidic environment, causing membranes in cells to rupture. The membranes release enzymes that begin eating the cells from the inside out.