Virgin Mary, Ark of the Covenant

[*Deidre*]

Bucky, that is a great post.

[Phatt Matt s]

Yes I'm sure anyone can provide a list of authors who claim doctrine X, Y, and Z is false. It doesn't prove anything. Also, I don't understande the Bible and I question how inerrant it is. Yet your idea that the Virgin Birth is Unbiblical, is a preposterous strawman that I would never have expected to come from an educated person.

You were making the point that this Virgin Birth stuff was taken from Pagan myth. I was simply showing you the errors.

Having a Doctorate doesn't mean one is right. THere are plenty of people far more educated and gifted than you who would say that you are full of shit!

Oh you have an education therefore you must be right. Nice strawman Dorothy. Toto and tin man would be proud of you

Also, what you said about Pagan Myth had many holes as I have and will continue to explain.

THe Hindu deity, Krishna, is often used. According to the religious Hindu text, Vishnu Purana, Krishna was mentally transmitted from the mind of the god Vasudeva (an incarnation of Krishna himself) into the womb of the princess Devaki. This appears at first glance to be a striking parallel, but it cannot be classified a virgin birth because Devaki and Vasudeva had previously borne seven children together.

One other item of note in this regard concerns the dating of the Puranas. According to R.C Zaehner, professor of Eastern Religions at Oxford, these texts did not begin to take shape until some time in the fourth century (cf. Hinduism, pg. 126).

In many cases, the birth of the pagan god will be the result of a sexual encounter between another god and a mortal woman. In other cases, the conception of the god is the result of a sexual encounter between another god and goddess. The two most often-used “virgin birth” parallels by mythicists are those of Horus and Dionysus.

The supposed “virgin birth” of the Egyptian god Horus is the most frequently encountered parallel, but the actual details of the myth do not resemble the story of Jesus at all. According to the mythology, this falcon-headed god was the offspring of the goddess Isis. Her husband, the god Osiris, was killed by his enemy Seth, the god of the desert, and later dismembered. Isis managed to retrieve all of Osiris’s body parts except for his phallus, which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by catfish. Isis used her goddess powers to temporarily resurrect Osiris and fashion a phallus of gold. She was then impregnated, and Horus was conceived.

The story of the birth of Jesus is just like that.

[Silver]

The fact that an immaculate conception is a biological impossibility, and one that has never been verifiably repeated, is claim enough of its falseness.

[Phatt Matt s]

Yes Biologically impossible. I agree but for the sake of balance will examine other angles.

THere is a lot of other situations where we don't see the miracles of evolution as well due to Biologic impossibilities, no scientific possibility of speciation changes due to the inviolable genetic codes of different kinds of creatures, if they just project enough time into the speculative process, however, theoretically even the impossible will miraculously become possible.

[Bucky Ball]

Yet your idea that the Virgin Birth is Unbiblical, is a preposterous strawman that I would never have expected to come from an educated person.

You were making the point that this Virgin Birth stuff was taken from Pagan myth. I was simply showing you the errors.

Unsupported assertions are worth shit. You have NOTHING to support ANYTHING you say. You're out of your league here, dear.
I was NOT saying it was a "pagan myth" I said the concept of a (gynecological) "virgin birth" stemmed from a mistranslation. YOU have done nothing to refute that.

There are No "errors" you have yet demonstrated.
Saying something is a 'strawman" because you don't like it, just shows you have NOTHING to refute the contention of the mistranslation. The ONLY thing that will do that, is to show HOW the text SHOULD be translated correctly. Since YOU know no Archaic Hebrew or Greek, how about you sit this one out, dear.

[Silver]

THere is a lot of other situations where we don't see the miracles of evolution as well due to Biologic impossibilities, no scientific possibility of speciation changes due to the inviolable genetic codes of different kinds of creatures, if they just project enough time into the speculative process, however, theoretically even the impossible will miraculously become possible.

That read like gobbly-gook to me.

[Chas]

No Marian cunt I won't.

Take your theist bullshit somewhere else.

Wow, you really care for some reason that it is the case that this person has views that are theist and simultaneously bullshit.

Maybe at some point I also cared as much as you do about that.

Glad I don't now.

I have accepted that in general, that is that is the case for probably about 90% of the world's population, and that I must accept as a fact of the world.

90%? Not even close to that. There aren't nearly that many Christians, let alone devout Catholics.

[Bucky Ball]

THere is a lot of other situations where we don't see the miracles of evolution as well due to Biologic impossibilities, no scientific possibility of speciation changes due to the inviolable genetic codes of different kinds of creatures, if they just project enough time into the speculative process, however, theoretically even the impossible will miraculously become possible.

1. It's "there ARE". You can't seem to write a correct sentence in correct English. hmmm ?

2. The rest of that post was incoherent crap. Evolution has NOTHING "impossible" about it AT ALL. If you think that it does, it simply PROVES how uneducated you are.

3. If Jesus did not have a FULL set of normal chromosomes contributed by a HUMAN mother and a HUMAN father, he was not a (by definition) "human".
Your "faith" is built on ancient ignorance.

[Phatt Matt s]

In regard to your statement about me doing anything to prove the existance of Jesus, you are right, I can't prove my point, neither can you prove yours.

However, Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.

In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.

1.^ a b In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
2.^ a b Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
3.^ a b Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
25.^ James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
26.^ a b The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".


27.^ Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN 0-86012-006-6 pages 730-731
28.^ Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9-page 15

[Bucky Ball]

THere is a lot of other situations where we don't see the miracles of evolution as well due to Biologic impossibilities, no scientific possibility of speciation changes due to the inviolable genetic codes of different kinds of creatures, if they just project enough time into the speculative process, however, theoretically even the impossible will miraculously become possible.

That read like gobbly-gook to me.

Cuz it was.