Why Y?

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't want to review the specifics of Horus, Osiris, Krishna, etc. unless you get specific. You see, I don't tend to remember the details of these stories. They do not stick with me. I read them when I have to do some study. But I always have to go back and refresh myself.

Do you at least accept the observation of wikipedia? Which is: "Miraculous births are a common element in historical literature and religious texts. Stories of miracle births often include miraculous conceptions and features such as intervention by a deity, supernatural elements, astronomical signs, hardship or in the case of some mythologies complex plots related to creation."

Originally posted by FMF
Do you at least accept the observation of wikipedia? Which is: "Miraculous births are a common element in historical literature and religious texts. Stories of miracle births often include miraculous conceptions and features such as intervention by a deity, supernatural elements, astronomical signs, hardship or in the case of some mythologies complex plots related to creation."

There is no need for you to press if I believe the stories exist. I already said that I do not recall the details of these stories without reviewing them.

That means I believe such stories exist which have things that sometimes remind people of something written in the Gospels.

I don't think there was a need to double check that I acknowledge the existence of other beliefs and their unusual details.

Originally posted by jaywill
That means I believe such stories exist which have things that sometimes remind people of something written in the Gospels.

You think the "miraculous birth" stories/beliefs subscribed to by people in various other religions remind those people of something written in the Christian Gospels?

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't think there was a need to double check that I acknowledge the [b]existence of other beliefs and their unusual details.[/b]

Oh? There was no need? How so?

On pages 5 and 6 of this thread you seemed to be bending over backwards to not acknowledge the existence of other "miraculous birth" beliefs. So I reckon there was a need to double check with you.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You know, when you are as profoundly brainwashed into your religion as you are, why don't you just make a list of your pithy sayings, which you use over and over again anyway, and just go, as an answer to some post, #2. #6, #2, #8, etc, #1 being "Glory Halleluya!", etc. It will save you a lot of typing.

#2: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups"

And so forth.

Good idea. Then I would not have to remember or make up any new pithy sayings. I could be lazy and just look up one of the old ones that fit the situation. 😏

Originally posted by FMF
Literature being skillfully spun to sustain a narrative that engages and unifies a group of people is not really such an incredible or impossible thing to do. In fact I would say doing it is a natural and predictable anthropological facet of human nature and human intellectual capacity.

Literature being skillfully spun to sustain a narrative that engages and unifies a group of people is not really such an incredible or impossible thing to do. In fact I would say doing it is a natural and predictable anthropological facet of human nature and human intellectual capacity.

It is important to remember that some of the supporting details were given way before the main referent came along.

Ie. The experts in the Hebrew Scriptures knew that a Messiah would be born in Bethlehem because of Micah's famous prophecy.

The magi went to Jerusalem to inquire where any alledged King of the Jews might be born. Herod consulted his experts in the Jew's Scripture and they came up with Bethlehem.

Now the evangelphobic might argue that such never happened but it was concocted to give creedence to the narrative of Jesus being born in Bethlehem.

But the passage was there in the prophetic writings of Micah long before the NT was written. I don't think Matthew lied.

The prophecy of a virgin birth in Isiaiah also was in the Scripture before the virgin birth of Jesus. Some may argue with some ground that the Hebrew word there does not have to mean a woman who has not had sexual relations.

This has some credence. But the word translated into the Greek Septuagint used a Greek word which would indicate such. So at least before the event by a couple of hundred years language translation scholars THOUGHT that was what was intended in the Hebrew language.

Forthermore, it would hardly be an unusual "sign" for a young woman to give birth to a baby. So the context of the prophecy suggests some kind of miracle or unusual event. A young woman having a baby is not that unusual.

The Hebrew word there about a virgin bringing forth a child can mean young woman. But it does NOT mean anything BUT a woman who has not had sexual relations. And some modern critics try to make this case, that it CANNOT mean a "virgin" as we think of.

The writer of Isaiah chapter 53 was no longer around when the events of the New Testament were happening and being latter written. The relevancy of many of its statements are uncanningly relevant to what Jesus taught about Himself and DID.

You would have to argue that Jesus Himself purposely orchestrated His life around those statements. But how could He arrange to be born in Bethlehem ?

How could He arrange to die and rise again to see the travail of His soul, AS the Isaiah prophecy of chapter 53 teaches ? He could only do so if He was God.

In verse 10 the Suffering Servant is to die -

"But Jehovah was pleased to crush Him, to afflict Him with grief, When He makes Himself an offering for sin." (v.10)

The offering for sin has to be killed.

" ... He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of My people to whom the stroke was due " (v. 8b)

That is a propitiatory death on behalf of others still living.

" ... they assigned His grave with the wicked, But with a rich man in His death." (v.9)

This Suffering Servant is really to die and be placed in a burial place of the dead.

"He will see the fruit of the travail of His soul and He will be satisfied; By the knowledge of Him, the righteous One, My Servant, will make the many righteous, and He will bear their iniquities." (v.11)

This has to mean after being killed He will will see and be satisfied with His constituting those for whom He died, justified and righteous.

The resurrection is very strongly infered. Once you are dead the only way we know of one could be satisfied at what one has done is either in some life after death world or in resurrection from the dead in this world.

Yes, any propogandist will add verifying support to the message. That in and off itself says nothing about the truth or falsity of the thing reported. I think in this case the propogandist is relating the true propoganda. There was something worth being excited about and telling future generations of the world.

Jesus certainly acted and taught as if the entire Isaiah 53 chapter was His life's story. He certainly took the lead to believe that it refered to Himself.

I think it did. And I think no realistic conspiracy analysis can account for this.

Originally posted by jaywill

Literature being skillfully spun to sustain a narrative that engages and unifies a group of people is not really such an incredible or impossible thing to do. In fact I would say doing it is a natural and predictable anthropological facet of human nature and human intellectual capacity.

It is important to remember that some of the suppor ...[text shortened]... think it did. And I think no realistic conspiracy analysis can account for this.

Read Micah 5:2 and on yourself. You and your fellow babes in the woods known as Christians have been lied to. What is being referred to in Micah is not a geographic location but a clan. As far as the mythological genealogies go, Jesus was of the clan of Judah which means Micah 5:2 does not apply. You do realize that since I have been around, only one post of yours said anything substantial and you claimed that was a typo.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
Read Micah 5:2 and on yourself. You and your fellow babes in the woods known as Christians have been lied to. What is being referred to in Micah is not a geographic location but a clan. As far as the mythological genealogies go, Jesus was of the clan of Judah which means Micah 5:2 does not apply. You do realize that since I have been around, only one post of yours said anything substantial and you claimed that was a typo.

Micah 5:2 is one of the clearest indicators given in the Hebrew Scriptures for identifying the Messiah, a prophecy which both pinpoints the exact birth location of the Messiah, as well as telling us much about the charactre and power of this Anointed One. For this reason, Micah 5:2 has also been one of the most maligned prophecies in the Bible, discounted and twisted by those who choose not to see the clear fulfillment of this passage as it is found in Matthew's Gospel. By altering the understanding of what Micah 5:2 is saying from the understanding that has been traditionally held by both Jews and Christians, opponents of the Gospel hope to cast doubt on Matthew's claim of fulfillment of this prophecy by Jesus Christ.

Micah 5:2 (v.1 in the Hebrew text) reads,


"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
Attacks upon this passage centre primarily around three objections:


The "Bethlehem Ephratah" mentioned is not a geographical location, but is instead the name of a clan, or even an individual. Hence, this prophecy is not even predicting a birthplace for the Messiah to begin with. Matthew simply misunderstood the passage and tried to provide an erroneous fulfillment in his Gospel.

This prophecy predicts a ruler to come. Jesus Christ did not fulfill this particular aspect as He is not ruling and reigning now.

This prophecy does not predict a ruler who would come from eternity past. This is a mistranslation in Christian Bibles designed to work Christian theology about Jesus into the prophecy.

Each of these objections will be addressed in turn, and will be shown to be groundless for a number of reasons that will be considered and explained. See link below.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/micah5n2.html

Originally posted by Phil Hill
Read Micah 5:2 and on yourself. You and your fellow babes in the woods known as Christians have been lied to. What is being referred to in Micah is not a geographic location but a clan. As far as the mythological genealogies go, Jesus was of the clan of Judah which means Micah 5:2 does not apply. You do realize that since I have been around, only one post of yours said anything substantial and you claimed that was a typo.

Read Micah 5:2 and on yourself. You and your fellow babes in the woods known as Christians have been lied to. What is being referred to in Micah is not a geographic location but a clan. As far as the mythological genealogies go, Jesus was of the clan of Judah which means Micah 5:2 does not apply. You do realize that since I have been around, only one post of yours said anything substantial and you claimed that was a typo.

Since you want to try to add force to your criticisms with name calling and accusations of liar, you may find me being a little rough in return. But I don't like to be.

Now, the scribes and Pharisees of 2,000 plus years ago knew what was in their Scriptures pretty well. They may have not had belief in the prophecy though, ie. none of them seemed interested enough to GO to Bethlehem to see, as far as we are told.

The point though is that THEY understood that the prophesy was useful in locating the GEOGRAPHIC area where one such messianic King of the Jews might be born. That is precisely why they said in Bethlehem. And that is why the magi went there. AND that is why Herod, in his jealousy, sent troops there to kill all the baby boys two years and under.

Grasp it is you can. THEY UNDERSTOOD the passage to be useful in pinpointing a geographic location. You cannot blame that interpretation on Christians. You have to blame that interpretation on the experts in the Hebrew Scriptures - the scribes and Pharisees of Herod's generation.

There has been some munipulation of Micah's words lately, to try to nullify that Micah was talking geography. But the ancients used the words geographically. The Jews for Jesus in Herod's city did not take them aside and educate them that that was how the passage should be twisted.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] Read Micah 5:2 and on yourself. You and your fellow babes in the woods known as Christians have been lied to. What is being referred to in Micah is not a geographic location but a clan. As far as the mythological genealogies go, Jesus was of the clan of Judah which means Micah 5:2 does not apply. You do realize that since I have been around, only one ...[text shortened]... ty did not take them aside and educate them that that was how the passage should be twisted.

Really? You don't like to be rough? You are a damn liar. What was calling me a troll, a compliment? listen, try to spin all you want but what was written in Micah is clear. If you want to claim the gospel story as a confirmation of it, then it is your job to provide extra-biblical evidence in support of it. I'll wait....go.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
Really? You don't like to be rough? You are a damn liar. What was calling me a troll, a compliment? listen, try to spin all you want but what was written in Micah is clear. If you want to claim the gospel story as a confirmation of it, then it is your job to provide extra-biblical evidence in support of it. I'll wait....go.

Really? You don't like to be rough? You are a damn liar. What was calling me a troll, a compliment?

Substance Phil, less side shows. Since that troll remark I did apologize. So that's old stuff.

Ie. I apologized already BECAUSE of not liking to generate heat here more than light.

listen, try to spin all you want but what was written in Micah is clear. If you want to claim the gospel story as a confirmation of it, then it is your job to provide extra-biblical evidence in support of it. I'll wait....go.

No. Before you jump to that demand, you tell me why ipso facto I am obligated to assume Matthew could not be writing history.

Your presupposition is that Matthew cannot be trusted to be objective about anything and is lying. Herod never did it. The Magi never did it. The scribes and Pharisees never did it.

On your say so ? Who are you ?

Anyway, you demand that I presuppose Matthew is lying. On that presupposition you want extra biblical confirmation.

Well, that's interesting. but -

1.) Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Major events in a lot of ancient history doesn't have as many "outside" confimations as some of us would like.

2.) Apply the same strict criteria to some other major ancient figures and you would have to quickly rule out the likelihood that Socrates ever lived, that a number of other figures have real information written down about them existing.

Do you apply the same strict test of historicity to Julius Ceasar ?

Non-biblical writers confirm that the following people refered to by the Evangelists did exist -

Agrippa I, Agrippa II, Anania, Annas, Aretas, Bernice (wife of Agrippa II), Caesar Augustus, Caiaphas, Claudius, Drusilla (wife of Felix), Egyptian false prophet, Erastus, Felix, Gallio, Gamliel, Herod Antipas, Herod Archelaus, Herod the Great, Herod Philip I, Herod Phillip II, Herodias, Herodias daughter (Salome), James, John the Baptist, Judas the Galilean, Lysanias, Pilate, Quirinius, Porcius Festus, Serius Festus, Tiberius Caesar.

Outside sources say "Yea, these guys were really historical." So why do I have to presuppose that the writer of Matthew cannot convey truthful history ?

Originally posted by jaywill

Really? You don't like to be rough? You are a damn liar. What was calling me a troll, a compliment?

Substance Phil, less side shows. Since that troll remark I did apologize. So that's old stuff.

Ie. I apologized already BECAUSE of not liking to generate heat here more than light.


[quote]
listen, try to spin all y ...[text shortened]... have to presuppose that the writer of [b]Matthew cannot convey truthful history ?[/b]

You apologized? Where?

You can presuppose anything you want but that in no way makes it true. Go ahead and assume Matthew is historical all you want but academia and science knows that it's not.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
You apologized? Where?

You can presuppose anything you want but that in no way makes it true. Go ahead and assume Matthew is historical all you want but academia and science knows that it's not.

You apologized? Where?

You can presuppose anything you want but that in no way makes it true. Go ahead and assume Matthew is historical all you want but academia and science knows that it's not.

When another poster came in and buked me. I mentioned your name and said I was sorry - to you .

Gary Habermas is a Christian scholar who is best at throwing your complaints about the historicity of the New Testament stories against.

If you are at all open minded, and you doubt discount on general principle, check out your YouTube on debates and talks given by Gary Habermas.

Here's a sample on the reliability of the account of Christ's resurrection from a secular standpoint (no assuming sacred inspired texts).

General Interview

YouTube

Originally posted by jaywill

You apologized? Where?

You can presuppose anything you want but that in no way makes it true. Go ahead and assume Matthew is historical all you want but academia and science knows that it's not.

When another poster came in and buked me. I mentioned your name and said I was sorry - to you .

Gary Habermas is a Christian sch ...[text shortened]... inspired texts).

General Interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDhy_NO9v2c

I don't see it when I click on your name and check your posts. Anyway, you claim you apologized since another poster said something? You didn't think that you offended me and should have apologized on your own before something was said? That isn't an apology, it is about as worthless as Clinton's "a blowjob isn't sex."

Habermas is a hack and why should I be open to stories that have been shown time and again to have no basis in history or science?

Originally posted by jaywill

1.) The miracle was prophesied centries before, that it would occur. So we were given a "heads up" that a miraculous birth of a special person was on its way.

no such prophecy exists in the bible.