Posts: 2658
Threads: 121
Joined: March 19, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: Why Yahweh? (Or Allah, or Zeus, etc.)
October 25, 2012 at 10:45 am
(October 25, 2012 at 10:31 am)John V Wrote: (October 25, 2012 at 10:29 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Spot on. And what does that sound like? It sounds like he's speaking of a real flesh and blood man.
Wrong. It has the same air to it as the OT i.e. "he will be born of a young woman". Paul fails to mention Mary's name and the fact that it fulfilled a "prophecy", namely, that it was a virgin birth.
Clearly, to a Christian this would seem incoherent, but to me it makes perfect sense because it aligns with all the other evidence to show Jesus wasn't human but a spirit, or more to the point, the Sun of God, the Light of the world whose reflection against water makes it seem like he can walk on water.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: Why Yahweh? (Or Allah, or Zeus, etc.)
October 25, 2012 at 11:08 am
(October 25, 2012 at 10:45 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Wrong. It has the same air to it as the OT i.e. "he will be born of a young woman". I.e., a flesh and blood human.
Quote:Paul fails to mention Mary's name and the fact that it fulfilled a "prophecy", namely, that it was a virgin birth.
And?
Quote:Clearly, to a Christian this would seem incoherent, but to me it makes perfect sense because it aligns with all the other evidence to show Jesus wasn't human but a spirit, or more to the point, the Sun of God, the Light of the world whose reflection against water makes it seem like he can walk on water.
Er, you just said above that it has the same air as "he will be born of a young woman," which indicates a human, not a spirit.
This isn't incoherent to Christians specifically, it's just incoherent.
Posts: 2658
Threads: 121
Joined: March 19, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: Why Yahweh? (Or Allah, or Zeus, etc.)
October 25, 2012 at 11:20 am
(October 25, 2012 at 11:08 am)John V Wrote: (October 25, 2012 at 10:45 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Wrong. It has the same air to it as the OT i.e. "he will be born of a young woman". I.e., a flesh and blood human. In those times they were perfectly fine with their chosen saviour god to have resided in the lower heavens while still holding human attributes. E.g. Mithras didn't slay a bull on earth to redeem mankind but rather in the heavens. I'm sure the same goes for Hercules' 12 works in that they weren't earthly occurences but rather "cosmic". Therefore, I don't see any conflict here between what Paul says and Jesus being a spirit.
Quote:Quote:Paul fails to mention Mary's name and the fact that it fulfilled a "prophecy", namely, that it was a virgin birth.
And?
It goes to show the events found in the Gospels never happened.
Quote:Quote:Clearly, to a Christian this would seem incoherent, but to me it makes perfect sense because it aligns with all the other evidence to show Jesus wasn't human but a spirit, or more to the point, the Sun of God, the Light of the world whose reflection against water makes it seem like he can walk on water.
Er, you just said above that it has the same air as "he will be born of a young woman," which indicates a human, not a spirit.
This isn't incoherent to Christians specifically, it's just incoherent.
Refer to what I said before.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: Why Yahweh? (Or Allah, or Zeus, etc.)
October 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm
(October 25, 2012 at 11:20 am)FallentoReason Wrote: In those times they were perfectly fine with their chosen saviour god to have resided in the lower heavens while still holding human attributes. E.g. Mithras didn't slay a bull on earth to redeem mankind but rather in the heavens. I'm sure the same goes for Hercules' 12 works in that they weren't earthly occurences but rather "cosmic". Therefore, I don't see any conflict here between what Paul says and Jesus being a spirit. Sorry, but sweeping unsupported generalizations don't overturn the plain reading of the text, which indicates that Jesus was human. Spirits aren't typically born of women.
Quote:It goes to show the events found in the Gospels never happened.
Are you arguing:
- that the gospels were intended as spiritual as well, or
- that the gospels conflict with Paul?
Posts: 3117
Threads: 16
Joined: September 17, 2012
Reputation:
35
RE: Why Yahweh? (Or Allah, or Zeus, etc.)
October 25, 2012 at 12:35 pm
(October 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm)John V Wrote: Sorry, but sweeping unsupported generalizations don't overturn the plain reading of the text, which indicates that Jesus was human. Spirits aren't typically born of women.
For once I am going to have to agree with John V. Jesus was human, there is no doubt about this.
I think the real claim, which has perhaps been distorted, is that the prophecy of Jesus's birth is not a legitimate one, as 'virgin' also meant 'young woman' at thet time, and this implied nothing miraculous about Jesus's birth. The virgin birth was most likely made up after Jesus's death.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
258
RE: Why Yahweh? (Or Allah, or Zeus, etc.)
October 25, 2012 at 12:53 pm
(October 25, 2012 at 10:17 am)John V Wrote: (October 25, 2012 at 9:51 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Paul speaks of a spiritual being. That's no better than Attis dying and being resurrected. No, Paul speaks of Jesus as a real flesh and blood man. One example:
Galatians 4
4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eysingsp.html
Quote: The Epistle to the Galatians is considered almost universally to be the oldest surviving document of Christian origin, although we have no positive evidence for its existence before 180, and even then only the evidence of the most uncritical of the Church Fathers - namely, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian - [66] men who have pronounced almost all the New Testament writings to be of apostolic origin, including even the Fourth Gospel, the Pastoral, and the Catholic Epistles.
"Paul" is as phony as the rest of it.
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: Why Yahweh? (Or Allah, or Zeus, etc.)
October 25, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Clicked on your link - thanks for the laugh!
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
258
RE: Why Yahweh? (Or Allah, or Zeus, etc.)
October 25, 2012 at 1:14 pm
I never expect any devotee of fairy tales to learn how phony it all is.
Still, there are others here who are far more intelligent than you and this is for their benefit. You keep praying to fucking "Paul." It's obviously all you can handle.
http://jesusneverexisted.com/galatians.html
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Why Yahweh? (Or Allah, or Zeus, etc.)
October 25, 2012 at 1:23 pm
(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: That's what you believe (and I personally do agree) but Muslims believe Islamic laws to be applied by government are superior to secular laws.
It has nothing to do with "beliefs". The superiority of secular laws can be shown objectively.
(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: You are of course attacking the conclusion. However, you don't show what premise you disagree with that leads to the conclusion?
Read again, it's premise no. 2. The best organization does not come form god.
(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Is it that humans know how to organize society better then God?
Clearly.
(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: How does that work? But anyways, irrelevant, due to the fact whether morality needs God or not, God knows (objective) morality and can provide best guidance of it.
If it is objective, then god's guidance is not required.
(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Isn't this circular, I provide an argument that shows divine command/religious guidance in ethics, and you simply state something that attacks the conclusion, rather then addressing the argument?
Of course I do agree with your conclusion, but it seems circular as opposed to addressing the argument. Its not circular and it does address the argument.
(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Why would that be? Islam for example assumes religions were mostly originally founded on revelations from God but got corrupted. What does humans corrupting revelations have to do with God being bad communicator?
Clearly Islam knows very little about other religions to assume that the original version of a lot of religions were anything like it is now.
(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Anyways, whether he did good job communicating or not, is not addressing the argument. What's the flaw in the argument.
That is the flaw. By your assumption, your god would not be a poor communicator.
(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: You can't simply attack the conclusion, without showing why the premises don't lead to it or which premise that factors in leading to it, is wrong.
You know which of the premises is wrong. I pointed that out at the very beginning. I started with "Even with the faulty premises" - referring to your assumption that god exists. Then I show how your conclusions don't match the reality.
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: Why Yahweh? (Or Allah, or Zeus, etc.)
October 25, 2012 at 1:33 pm
(This post was last modified: October 25, 2012 at 1:34 pm by John V.)
OK, what's any of that got to do with the thread topic? I understand things drift, but come on...
(October 25, 2012 at 1:14 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I never expect any devotee of fairy tales to learn how phony it all is.
Still, there are others here who are far more intelligent than you and this is for their benefit. You keep praying to fucking "Paul." It's obviously all you can handle.
http://jesusneverexisted.com/galatians.html Yep, you sure is a fart smeller all right!
|
