Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[WesOlsen]

WesOlsen Wrote: ....Again I also want you to tell me:

. Who was Joseph's dad?


In one thread we rejoice over same-sex 'marriage' and gay adoption. Of course a child can have two dads.

In another thread we whine about the bible's ambiguity about father, father in law.

Typical hypocrisy from the bible errancy crowd.

I'm not sure what your claim is here. I've not mentioned same sex marriage yet, not that I have a problem with two men living together in a loving relationship if that's what you're testing the water for. Neither do I doubt that two men can raise a child in a loving environment. I wouldn't have a problem with Joseph if he did have two dads, which wasn't common practice during the early roman period (unless you can demonstrate otherwise). My point is that the bible gives yet another conflicting character account. The lineage of jesus is already muddled when we look at claims he was of royal descent (we get a bunch of nice rounded sets of 7 by different authors). Joseph has two different dads as already mentioned by xpastor, because it's largely zebra poo.

WesOlsen Wrote: ..... How come nobody other than Matthew talks about the huge 'kill the firstborn' operation launched by Herod, which would have required enormous coordination and manpower?


You mean how come people were afraid to write bad stuff about a blood-thirsty dictator who murdered his own family members and who had an army?

Or maybe you are wondering why Herods day-to-day exercise of brute force in order to hold on to power wasnt particularly newsworthy back then. Abortion isnt very controversial and it is 2013!

"...enormous coordination and man power"
LOL
You dont even know how many new born babies were murdered in Bethlehem and yet you are a self-appointed expert on the coordination and manpower.

This is what really makes me laugh at these anti-theist bible skeptics.
On the one hand they rant about the slaughter of the Canaanites factually mentioned in the bible when it suits them.

But they claim Herod murdering babies never happened.

They claim the Exodus out of Egypt never happened.
...and yet it was the folk who left Egypt who went on to invade Canaan!!!

Come on WesOlsen. Make up your mind which part of the bible happened and which didnt.

I've not discussed in detail canaanites being anihilated, although as i'm sure you're well aware the bible is overspilling with stories of genocide. I'm not an expert on manpower, whatever the hell that might look like. But to arrange the murder of every firstborn child in the land WOULD require significant coordination and manpower by any rational historical standards. There would likely have been a heck of a lot of births around this period in this part of the world. Of course, Herod could have asked god to do it for him, the dude's pretty handy at slaughtering whole populations at the flick of a finger, if we take the bible literally. I think my point is that the bible is so vague, contradictory and bombastic that we can't take anything at 100% face value. Herod's tale appears only once because it's likely a steaming pile of shite. This is why most bible scholars and historians in general take it with a very large grain of salt. Unlike you. Which bloodythirsty dictator are you referring to by the way? Herod or God? Because both agencies are depcited as pretty repulsive characters.

"Or maybe you are wondering why Herods day-to-day exercise of brute force in order to hold on to power wasnt particularly newsworthy back then. "

Well if the bible can find time to talk about inane tales of jesus cursing a fig tree for bearing no fruit out of season then i'm sure it can find a few sentences to mention big nasty Herod. It managed to squeeze in a few sections on god's various population control techniques. One might suspect that the enemies of a bloodthirsty dictator might have a great deal to write about. The victims of the roman's various incursions certainly documented death and destruction. Your points are complete toilet, but then you rely on one secondary source for all your knowledge about the world. Try reading some cell biology journals, I gaurantee you'll feel liberated within minutes.

And why can't bible scholar Aractus answer the questions i've put to him, is it because it's a multiple choice questionnaire?

If you theist cranks so desire, I can spell out in plain English all the resurrection myths in full, just in case you aren't sure yourself who Jesus visited and at which point he flew off to his mothership (with or without the flying and talking cross from Peter's director's cut)? Although I suspect you know by this point that each of the resurrection myths contain huge discrepancies, as detailed in my previous post and by the other users of this forum.

[Godscreated]

Jesus ascension was during day light hours, not at night. Now it says Jesus tarried with them which means he spent some time with them, they said the day was near spent, this means night was shortly to come.

Really? Let's go to the tape.

Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Jesus told his followers to tarry in Jerusalem. It doesn't say he did so. Then he went out to Bethany and ascended into Heaven. There is no mention of "next day" or that the event happened during daylight hours.

Read Luke 24: 29-30, Jesus tarried in Emmaus.

Then a seven mile run, right, I ran track in high school, long distance, and running seven miles would be a difficult task for anyone who had not trained rigorously, actually I would say impossible.

I agree.

I would also agree it's impossible that Jesus was, in one night, arrested at Gethsemane, taken to trial by the high priests, then given over to Pilate, then transported to Herod Antipas, then sent back to Pilate to be tried all in one night.

You're making progress.

Why, Herod and Pilate were in close proximity to each other, it would not take long to move Jesus from one place to the other, just a few city blocks. The whole thing was not completed until the next morning, remember the cock was crowing.

The progress being made is truth, the truth of scripture revealed by God.

So by your own research it did not happen,

Again, I agree.

I see it's you that is starting to learn and progress.

also remember that sundown meant the start of a new day to the Jewish people.

Now you're playing semantic games. The point is Luke says it all happened within 24 hours which is a far cry from 40 days.

You're accusing me of semantics, now that's funny. Luke wrote both accounts and in the first he gave no time line, in the second he gave us a more detailed account. The Jewish people took their beginning and ending of a day seriously.

[DeistPaladin]

Read Luke 24: 29-30, Jesus tarried in Emmaus.

...long enough to have dinner and break bread with them. Maybe these Sons of God take 40 years to have dinner?

[Godscreated]

Read Luke 24: 29-30, Jesus tarried in Emmaus.

...long enough to have dinner and break bread with them. Maybe these Sons of God take 40 years to have dinner?

Semantics, there was no time frame established, however the word tarry does have a meaning of delaying. You are far away from proving Luke wrote two totally different stories, maybe one more informative than the other but, different I think not.

Much of ancient history has come to us in this way or with even less info, and I'm sure you have no problem with them because God is not a part of it.

GC

[DeistPaladin]

there was no time frame established

OK, you just go on believing that.

[Aractus]

And again, what was wrong with the NRSV 3rd Ed published by Oxford University Press? This is not to say they're the only ones who suggest a date around 70 CE. You can do a simple wikipedia search and find it (though I tend to go with Oxford more than Wikipedia). Christian scholars and apologists do try to push it back to 65 or even 60 CE. More skeptical scholars who don't believe in woo and divine prophecy place the earliest possible date at 70 CE for reasons already given.

The NRSV isn't the best translation, it tries to do way too much. Good on them though for taking on the NJB, when compared to it it is far better. They present as fact in their summary that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced Yahweh and that the Masorites borrowed the vowels from Adonai. Parroting this line for no real purpose, and never going into the correct pronunciation of Jesus/Joshua, etc.

Actually, scholars think that roughly half the epistles are "probably authentic" and the rest are of dubious authorship. Pseudo-epigraphy was a common problem with religious texts. Anyone who wanted to push a certain theological agenda could "discover" a letter by a more notable church figure from history that happened to agree.

Nothing is dubious. "Disputed" does not mean dubious - and disputed by who? If you're talking about Paul's 13 Epistles (or 14 if you count Hebrews). Why don't we put this a different way. Of the 13, 7 are unanimously accepted by scholars including critics, sceptics, liberal and secular scholars. Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are disputed by some scholars, but certainly not by all nor by any clear majority. The three Pastoral Epistles are the only 3 that are rejected as being authentic/genuine Epistles by a majority (although, as you well know said majority comes from secular/sceptics).

And Wikipedia is wrong, shock-horror, about Ephesians. The majority view is that it is Pauline, or that it was written in collaboration with somebody under Paul's approval (ie co-written).

Please don't try and stretch the truth when you talk about these things.

Unlikely. Matthew corrects Mark in too many places where the theology is embarrassingly wrong. For example, Mark has Jesus saying "no divorce ever". Matthew, knowledgeable of Jewish customs and laws, puts in the caveat of the absence of female chastity.

It's unlikely but it's possible.

Good for you. Prove it.

I already have. 61 AD is when Luke ends the book of Acts.

One would think they'd have gotten the nativity story straight then, to say nothing of the contradictory itinerary of Jesus' ministry.

Um, I know I explained this before, but Matthew is written to a Jewish audience. Both Mark and Luke are written to Greek Christians. This necessitates that you will have less information which is relevant only to Jews and not Greeks. This, by the way, is why Matthew mentions the exception to divorce where Mark and Luke do not.

Let's stick to canonical works. Christians maintain that the heterodox Christian texts came much later, which is why they can be discounted.

No, not necessarily.

Do me the kindness of a link, then. They're easy to create. It's the globe-with-the-chain-under-it icon above the text box.

To be blunt, I'm skeptical of your claim to have debunked my observations given the quality of the logic you've presented so far.

The language that Luke uses is not consistent with a "one and only census administered under Quirinius". The way it is most often translated is "the first census under Quirinius", well how is there a "first" census if there's only one? It's nonsensical. It's also a detail that Luke would be highly unlikely to get wrong because the census of 6AD was a very famous census, and he would have known the date that it happens.

He is simply talking about some other census that we do not know anything about that happens "BEFORE" the census under Quirinius.

[DeistPaladin]

The NRSV isn't the best translation,

It's not the translation that's relevant to our discussion. It's their research as outlined in their annotations.

I've also read many books by Christian apologists (Strobel, McDowell, et. al.) and none of them are so bold as to push the Gospel dates as early as you do (which you know they would if they thought they could get away with it). I know you don't like being called "fringy" but that's what you are, even by apologetic standards, never mind academic standards.

Nothing is dubious. (about the Pauline authorship)

Sorry, but it is. I just love how Christian apologists fawn all over Ehrman when he insists there is a historical Jesus but gloss over his more serious research on pseudo-epigraphy, interpolation and changes in the Bible.

It's unlikely but it's possible.

I would say otherwise, given the theological mistakes in Mark that Matthew corrects but you are welcome to your opinion. That "thud" you just heard was the burden of proof landing in your backyard.

I already have. 61 AD is when Luke ends the book of Acts.

And the first Spiderman movie ends with Spiderman landing on the World Trade Center towers, so I guess the events in that movie happened during the 90s at the latest.

Sorry, but events in works of fiction are not useful in determining when the fiction took place in history.

Um, I know I explained this before, but Matthew is written to a Jewish audience. Both Mark and Luke are written to Greek Christians. This necessitates that you will have less information which is relevant only to Jews and not Greeks. This, by the way, is why Matthew mentions the exception to divorce where Mark and Luke do not

.
Oh, I see. One is written to one audience and the other is written to another, which is why one has Jesus born in 4 BCE and the other in 6 CE, but that's OK because contradictions don't mean anything if each is made to a different audience ...not.

No, not necessarily.

Let's at least agree to stick to canonical works just to avoid opening a completely different discussion. Really, it works to your advantage that we don't also talk about the wild variety of early Christianities that existed in the first few centuries.

He is simply talking about some other census that we do not know anything about that happens "BEFORE" the census under Quirinius.

I'm aware of this apology and there are numerous and glaring problems with it. However, before we get into that, can you name for me one (1) single translation of the Bible that uses the word "before" and not "when" or "during" in the body of the translation in Luke 2:2? Not a footnote of the "controversy" but a translation that actually sides with your interpretation? I've have read 20 different English translations and two German translations and can't find one.

If you can, then we can discuss which translation is correct. If you can't, you're way off on the fringe again and should explain the conspiracy that thousands of different Bible scholars, all working independently of one another, all come to the same conclusion on what you believe to be the false translation. Afterwards, you can present your translation for peer review and become famous in the academic community. Good luck.

[Mstricky]

To the OP you said there is no doubt that Jesus was crucified but in Acts. Peter says four times that they killed Jesus by hanging him from a tree. Paul says once that.... when they took him down from the tree.....
I'd love to here your excuse as to the contradiction. He was either crucified or hung from a tree. One can't really have both.
Also Matthew Mark Luke John were all written by anonymous writers not the desciples.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Socrates - humility + Claims of Magic x Magnitudes of Despairity = Jesus

[Godscreated]

there was no time frame established

OK, you just go on believing that.

I will, I can recognize truth.

GC

---

To the OP you said there is no doubt that Jesus was crucified but in Acts. Peter says four times that they killed Jesus by hanging him from a tree. Paul says once that.... when they took him down from the tree.....
I'd love to here your excuse as to the contradiction. He was either crucified or hung from a tree. One can't really have both.
Also Matthew Mark Luke John were all written by anonymous writers not the desciples.

They are one and the same, different ways of expressing what happened. Besides the Romans were very efficient in their method of killing. Prove the apostles did not write the NT.

GC