One question for Christians

[Lemonvariable72]

Projection...

Of what exactly?

[Esquilax]

Catty, it seems you have yet to understand how devoid of intellectual rigor single word responses are. Perhaps you'd wish to subtract one word, and just remain silent until you have something useful to say?

Predicted response: "No, you."

[catfish]

Projection...

Of what exactly?

Of this,
" I see it all the time, you ask a christian something that might destabilize their position, and they'll do anything to blow it off."

I didn't see your post for some reason, so not directed towards you.

---

Catty, it seems you have yet to understand how devoid of intellectual rigor single word responses are. Perhaps you'd wish to subtract one word, and just remain silent until you have something useful to say?

Predicted response: "No, you."

Unbeliever ≠ deceiver is all I have to say...

[Esquilax]

Of this,
" I see it all the time, you ask a christian something that might destabilize their position, and they'll do anything to blow it off."

I didn't see your post for some reason, so not directed towards you.

Given a little time, I think I could find youtube clips featuring every one of my example questions, if you want. It's not projecting if it's completely factual and, unfortunately, what I said definitely is.

Unbeliever ≠ deceiver is all I have to say...

Oh look, instead, he went to... blow off something that discredits his position!

By the way, I think that thread still speaks for itself. You were wrong then, and surprisingly, misrepresenting my position here- as I corrected you on then- doesn't make you right now.

It's the same with that "fish" thing that's still in your sig. If having to outright lie is the only way you can make your point, your point must not be very good, huh catty?

[DeistPaladin]

Yes, you'd be better off praying for the answer. At least then you'd know not to expect one.

True, but my hope is that in fishing for an answer, I might be able to underscore why the whole salvation scheme is a massive fail on so many levels:

1. Justice Fail
If I am guilty of a crime, nobody can "take my place" in the punishment, even if that person is willing to do so. No justice system in the world would allow such a substitution. Is God's justice inferior to the system offered by humans?

2. Omnipotence Fail
Does God make the rules or not? Christians propose that God HAD to offer himself in the form of his own son as a blood sacrifice to convince himself to change a rule he made in the first place. Why is blood sacrifice required? Required by whom?

3. Concept of Sacrifice Fail
A grenade is thrown into a trench during a war. A soldier leaps on that grenade to sacrifice himself to save his comrades. This sacrifice only makes sense because the grenade is outside the soldier's control. The soldier, not being God, can't simply wish it away. The mechanics of the sacrifice and how it works are understood. How does the whole bleeding-on-the-cross thing to solve the sin-in-God's-presence thing work?

These are just a few of the questions that a satisfying answer must address.

[catfish]

Of this,
" I see it all the time, you ask a christian something that might destabilize their position, and they'll do anything to blow it off."

I didn't see your post for some reason, so not directed towards you.

Given a little time, I think I could find youtube clips featuring every one of my example questions, if you want. It's not projecting if it's completely factual and, unfortunately, what I said definitely is..

Given less time, I can find posts of your own that demonstrate the basis for your mental projections.

Unbeliever ≠ deceiver is all I have to say...

Oh look, instead, he went to... blow off something that discredits his position!

By the way, I think that thread still speaks for itself. You were wrong then, and surprisingly, misrepresenting my position here- as I corrected you on then- doesn't make you right now.

It's the same with that "fish" thing that's still in your sig. If having to outright lie is the only way you can make your point, your point must not be very good, huh catty?

You have something that discredits my position? That's a hoot.
On the contrary, you running from supporting your unbeliever = deceiver assertion supports my position (that your post was self-projection).

Woohoo, I won, buzz off, you have nothing of substance to add. (is that the proper way to claim victory?)

[Statler Waldorf]

Definition of Psychological Projection

Cute but irrelevant to what I said.

How many different ways are there to say "you have no evidence for an invisible sky-daddy who created the whole fucking universe?"

Apparently only one; and there’s even fewer ways to actually back that tired old assertion up as you have so eloquently demonstrated for us.

Of course, the perpetrators of xtianity knew from the start the caliber of their followers.

John 10:14

New International Version (NIV)

14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—

Sure beats the alternative….

And as we all know, the shepherd has the best interests of the sheep at heart. From farm to fork.

Actually we get this wonderful thing known to those of us in the civilized world as wool from sheep. Do you know what is really amazing about wool? It grows back and sheering does not harm the sheep.

Statler

Your statement here shows either a profound lack of knowledge of the early church or it is a deliberate lie.

Very consistent views aren't they.

The only reason we know what any of those heretics taught is because of what the early church fathers wrote about them. They were quickly identified as heretics and early Christians rejected their teachings and still reject them today. So all you have done is prove my claim to be accurate, Christians have always been greatly united in their Christology and have quickly struck down any attempted distortions of it that contradict the clear teachings in scripture.

Sorry, I never did get around to spoon-feeding SW after he refused to watch my video series on the subject. I didn't even touch the "heterodox" Christianities in history. I stuck to the canonical sources in the Bible!

Yes, I noticed you pouted after I refused to give you traffic on YouTube. You’re going to have to fight your own battles in here for once, and thus far you have not been fairing too well.

Jesus' birth:

Matthew:
Jesus' family lived in Bethlehem.

False. Matthew never says where they lived.

Jesus was born before 4 BCE (during the reign of Herod the Great)

Herod dying in 4BC is obtained from Josephus, not Matthew. Luke also says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod so this is not a contradiction.

and they were visited in their house by "wise men".

False again, Matthew says the wise men visited Jesus at a house, it never says it was his family’s home.

Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt with baby Jesus and later came back to settle in Nazareth.

You finally got one right! They return to Nazareth.

They did so because Joseph wanted to avoid his home town because Herod's son Archelaus was ruling Judea and he was just as bad as his father.

Almost correct, Matthew never says it is Joseph’s hometown in Matthew 2- you added that part.

Luke:
Jesus' family lived in Nazareth.

Yup.

Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 4 BCE).

The 4BC death of Herod is obtained from Josephus, not Luke.

Jesus was born after 6 CE (during the administration of Quirinius),

False, Luke does not actually say this.

where Mary gave birth in a manger, not a house.

This does not contradict Matthew for the following reasons…

A. Matthew never says Jesus was born in a house, he merely states that the wise men visited Jesus as a child in a house.
B. Jews from that time period often kept their animals on the first floors of their homes and slept on the upper floor. This means that mangers were located inside the house, not in a detached stable or barn like we see in America.

JC was visited by shepherds.

As a newborn yes.

They then returned directly to Nazareth.

False, Luke never says this.

Yeah, no contradictions so far...

Nope, just an ill-informed interpretation of the two accounts. Not sure how any of this is even relevant to denying that Christ ever existed, but obviously when you’re beat you’re just going to toss out anything and see if it sticks.

---

The start of JC's ministry

The Synoptics (Matt, Mark, Luke):
JC was baptized by John the Baptist. What the booming voice in the sky said and who booming voice addressed depends on which account you read. Then JC was "immediately" wisked by The Holy Spirit into the wilderness for 40 days where he was alone and tended to by angels and tempted by Satan. Then he returned to Galilee upon hearing that JtB had been arrested and began to preach.

John:
JC was not baptized by John the Baptist. Booming voice in the sky said something completely different than what was heard in the Synoptic versions. JC "the next day" and "on the second day" gathered followers (no wilderness adventure) and then attended a wedding on the "third day". He then had his temple tantrum (something that happens at the end of his ministry in the Synoptics). Then he opened a rival baptizing franchise to compete with JtB and, needless to say, JC beat JtB at his own game by delegating the baptizing to his disciples (what a business innovator). No need for JtB to get out of the way because JtB was JC's bitch-boy!

---

I’ve already refuted this nonsense for you. I’ll wait for you to actually address my refutation rather than merely reasserting the same nonsense ad nauseam.

Did Jesus fly up into the clouds on the same day of his resurrection (Luke) or did he drop by to show Thomas (John) or did he terry about for 40 days (Acts)?

I already refuted this one, Luke never says Jesus ascended on the same day he resurrected. His ascension took place forty days after the resurrection.

Or was the entire sighting of the resurrected Jesus a later add-on to the story (Mark)?

Demonstrate it.

Was the stone rolled away before Mary got there or was it rolled away by an angel?

False dichotomy, it was rolled away by an angel before Mary arrived at the tomb. Only the guards witnessed this.

Was there one angel or two?

Three . One rolls away the stone and is seen by the guards. The other two are seen in the tomb by the women.


I do not think the word contradiction means what you think it means. All of these can be easily harmonized, but none of this is relevant to whether Jesus existed or not; so can you say red herring fallacy?

And far from being "reliable eye-witnesses", even if we take the Christian claims of authorship at face value, they are clearly not.

Do you also reject the historically accepted fact that Hannibal traversed the Alps in 218 BC?

Mark: Gospel based on the preaching of Peter. Not an eye-witness.

Um, Peter was one of Jesus’ disciples, that is what we would call an eye witness.

Matthew: Lies repeatedly in his account of what the OT says. Not credible.

Even if this claim were true, which it is not, it would be the fallacy of poisoning the well.

Luke: Companion of Paul. Not a witness.

Luke based his gospel on the testimony of eye witnesses like all good historians do.

John: "Advanced" theology and the fact that "the Jews" are an adversarial religion indicate a late date of authorship.

We have a first century fragment of a copy of John’s gospel so it was not a late authorship at all. Learn your facts and stop appealing to long since refuted 19th Century German scholarship.

[*]Claiming Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the messiah. This is not true. Reading Isaiah 7 in its entirety clearly indicates he was speaking about current events, not a prophecy of a future messiah.

False. Isaiah 7 does in fact prophesize that the Jewish Messiah would be born of a young woman (virgin). It’s amusing but at the same time a bit sad that you are arrogant enough to believe that you know the Old Testament better than a well-educated 1st Century Jew did.

[*]The massacre of the innocents by Herod the Great is supposedly a fulfillment of Jeremiah but reading Jeremiah shows us that Jerry was speaking of the Babylonian Captivity.

An inaccurate oversimplification; God uses several double meanings like this throughout the preordained redemptive history documented in the Old Testament (the same applies to the example in Exodus). Matthew would have known the Old Testament better than anyone does today.

Three whoppers and we're only in chapter 2.

One falsehood and two naïve over simplifications on your part and we’re only in Chapter 2.

So, yeah, there's no rational reason to think the Gospels are historical documents.

Demonstrate this, do not merely assert it.

They are dumb as a 5 pound bag of rocks.

Wait, so you get destroyed in debates by people as dumb as bags of rocks? Yikes!

I also feel the whole death/ post-death judgement seems like double jeopardy.Any input from our resident theists?

What do you mean?

and since there is no christian god, then there is no sin.

Do you know this to be true, or do you simply hope this is true?

[Cyberman]

Hey, I'm just sitting here enjoying you telling the world that you're satisfied with being fleeced.

Tomorrow I may eat sheep.

[Minimalist]

Wait, so you get destroyed in debates by people as dumb as bags of rocks? Yikes! Tongue

Waldork, we do not debate.

You say something unimaginably stupid and I tell you that you are a fucking asshole.

That is not a debate. It is a mere statement of fact.

Asshole.

[DeistPaladin]

Cute but irrelevant to what I said.

No, it really wasn't.

We have no holy book.
We have no articles of faith.
We have no churches we attend with ministers who tell us the Truth (with a capital T) from the pulpit.

So, of the two of us, which one of us has a problem with thinking for ourselves?

Yes, I noticed you pouted after I refused to give you traffic on YouTube.

No, it just took me a while to find the time to spoon-feed you because you can't be bothered to click on a link. Sorry for the slow service but I'm not here to be at your beck and call. You're going to have to pay me tuition if I'm to school you on a regular schedule.

False. Matthew never says where they lived.

What, were Mary and Joseph staying at their uncle Seymour's place? The text says "THE house" (2:11). If the house belonged to another, wouldn't we expect the owner and relation to be named, as the Bible is known to go into torturous detail otherwise. Frankly, that's a pretty important detail. House? Who's house if it wasn't theirs?

But OK, let's pretend that they were staying in a house, visiting their aunt Ruth or something. Why then did they stay in a manger because "there was no room for them at the inn"? (Luke 2:7). Why would Mary give birth in a manger, one of the least sanitary places for childbirth imaginable, when they could have just stayed at their aunt Ruth and uncle Seymour's place.

And no, a house isn't a manger. A house is a place people live. A manger is a place for animals and shit. Literally, the "and shit" part is not just an expletive but a description of what you'll find there.

Herod dying in 4BC is obtained from Josephus, not Matthew.

It's also obtained from my Bible in the footnotes. And if it's in my Bible, you know it must be true, right?

Luke also says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod so this is not a contradiction.

No, Luke says she was pregnant during the administration of Quirinius. So she had a 10 year + pregnancy. Those sons of God take longer to bake in the oven.

Almost correct, Matthew never says it is Joseph’s hometown in Matthew 2- you added that part.

Why mention it at all, then? If Bethlehem was just a town where Joseph had to report for a Roman census (in an area ruled Herod the Great which wouldn't have been subject to said census) and Mary's water broke there, there was no reason at all to return to Bethlehem. The whole, "oh crap! Better stay away from there!" part (2:22), being warned by God no less, was completely superfluous. Joseph would have naturally returned to his home town if that had been Nazareth. Instead the Bible tells us:

NRSV 3rd Ed:
Matt 2:23
"There, he made his home in a town called Nazareth"

That verse doesn't make much sense if Nazareth was already his home town. The entire narrative nature suggests he had come to Nazareth for the first time. Certainly, if you were unaware of Luke, you would come to this conclusion.

I know it's hard, but when you read something, try not to read in the story you want to be there.

False, Luke does not actually say this.

Really. Let's go to the tape:

Luke 2:2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

False, Luke never says this.

Roll tape.

Luke
2:16 And they [the shepherds] came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
2:24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
[skip ahead over verses about Simon and Anna and what they did and said upon seeing the baby Jesus]
2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

In sum, they came, she gave birth, they circumcised, they presented, they sacrificed, they listened to Simon and Anna and then they returned home. What part of this escapes you?

Not sure how any of this is even relevant to denying that Christ ever existed, but obviously when you’re beat you’re just going to toss out anything and see if it sticks.

Try to keep up. If the story is bullshit, there's nothing left. The Gospels are the only detailed accounts we have.

Bart Ehrman insists that there was some guy named Yeshua who was some sort of end-times prophet who had some kind of ministry of some sort and preached some things but we're not sure what and had a brother named James. Yeah, OK, there were probably several if that's your criteria. It's the Gospel tales that I care about. Ehrman can pursue his "some guy Yeshua" in his ivory tower to his heart's content.

I’ve already refuted this nonsense for you.

Link?

Unlike you, I don't have an allergy to clicking on links.

I already refuted this one, Luke never says Jesus ascended on the same day he resurrected.

Stenographer, please read back the witness' testimony...

Luke 24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Demonstrate it.

Mark is well known to have originally ended at 16:8. My Bible tells me so.

False dichotomy, it was rolled away by an angel before Mary arrived at the tomb. Only the guards witnessed this.

Roll tape...

Matt 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

Three . One rolls away the stone and is seen by the guards. The other two are seen in the tomb by the women.

Again...

Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
Luke 24:3-4 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.

All of these can be easily harmonized

Of course they can! Any self-contradictory story can be harmonized if you work hard enough and bury it with sufficient ad hocs.

Let me give you an example from a silly limerick we sang as kids at a summer camp I once attended:

1. One day in the middle of the night,
2. two dead boys got up to fight.
3. Back to back, they faced each other,
4. drew their swords and shot each other.
5. Two deaf policeman heard this noise,
6. came to kill the two dead boys.
7. If you don't believe this lie is true,
8. you can ask the blind man, he saw it too.

And now my harmonization using Christian apologetic reasoning...

1. "Day" can mean a 24 hour period, which might include the night.
2. Only those who presuppose naturalism would deny the dead can rise and fight as the undead.
3. It doesn't say they did both at the same time. Further, zombies might be able to spin their heads around to face each other while back to back.
4. They could have been armed with both swords and guns.
5. There are degrees of deafness. "Deaf" people might still be able to hear really loud noises.
6. "Kill" in this case means final death for the undead.
7. "Lie" was a mistranslated word. The original language could allow for the word to mean "story" or "fable".
8. The blind man is an embarrassing witness which is the best kind. If the story was made up, they'd have fabricated a better witness.

Ta da!

Do you also reject the historically accepted fact that Hannibal traversed the Alps in 218 BC?

ECREE

Um, Peter was one of Jesus’ disciples, that is what we would call an eye witness.

It's not the Gospel of Peter, now is it?

An eye-witness account is what the witness saw, heard, smelled, touched, tasted. Hearsay is what the witness heard someone else say he saw, heard, smelled, touched or tasted.

Even if this claim were true, which it is not, it would be the fallacy of poisoning the well.

Not when the credibility of the witness is essential to the witness' testimony.

Luke based his gospel on the testimony of eye witnesses like all good historians do.

Even if that was true, Luke is still not an eye-witness.

We have a first century fragment of a copy of John’s gospel so it was not a late authorship at all.

Link?

Isaiah 7 does in fact prophesize [sic] that the Jewish Messiah would be born of a young woman (virgin).

No, it doesn't.

[whispered] Pssst: this is your cue to show how it does. [/whispered]

God uses several double meanings like this throughout the preordained redemptive history documented in the Old Testament (the same applies to the example in Exodus).

Prove it. Don't tell me what someone "really meant" to write. Show me what they wrote. Otherwise, on what basis do you assert that a double-meaning was intended and in the manner in which Matthew used them?