Let's cut through the chase: Jesus didn't exist.
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
So, god induced parthenogenesis in mary?
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
Hapsburg said:
IT is a good thing that you are not a theoretical scientist you would be touting the fact, in your mind, that theoretically the moon could be made of cheese.
Is this motherfucking Hapsburg guy, some kind of buffoon or something.
Last edited:
Woody said:
*************
M*W: "Theoretically" is the key word. Parthenogenesis is rare in multicell vertebrates but more common in invertebrates. Interestingly, in a normal woman of childbearing age, it is not impossible for an ovum to divide and multiply using only her DNA which doubles. Maybe somewhere in the medical journals this is addressed.
An interesting article by David Pratt:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/sex2.htm
The word "alma" is used frequently in the bible. However, it does not mean "virgin."
Rabbi Tova Singer explains its usage:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.htm
Let's look at this from a different angle. A modern young woman desires to have a child. (She's a virgin in today's interpretation.) She's not interested in getting married, and she has not been sexually active with any male. She goes to a fertility clinic and is fertilized in vitro. She is still a young woman. She is still a virgin (in today's usage). Yet, she is now pregnant. Technically, that would be a virgin birth in the biblical sense of the word.
Research has been done on the multiplication of the ovum in Germany. Their research also included injecting healthy ova into diseased organs similiar to stem cell transplantation. Their results were promising. It makes sense that we all start out female and at the third embryonic month, we differentiate sexually, hence low rejection of the implantation.
But, just for the record, the young woman in Isaiah who is impregnated was impregnated by Isaiah, and she gave birth to Isaiah's child. It was not a foretelling of the birth of Jesus.
Obviously you have never heard of "sarcasm".wayne_92587 said:
I was merely outlining the fact that anything is possible, in theory. However, without proper amounts of evidence, it is quite stupid to claim that said thing actually is probable.
Just for the record.....thats wrong.
The virgin refered to by Isaiah was Jesus, his prophecy brought it to pass 800 years later by the spoken word power of God.
The same creative power that brought this world into existance.
Just for the record.....
From the site “From Jesus to Christ”
“This FRONTLINE series is an intellectual and visual guide to the new and controversial historical evidence which challenges familiar assumptions about the life of Jesus and the epic rise of Christianity.”
“This site is anchored by the testimony of New Testament theologians, archaeologists and historians who serve as both critics and storytellers.”
* Seems like TESTIMONY to me. This is a predominately Pro Christian site, albeit with a sound academic functionality. Conceded.
* Your unbiased academics:
Helmut Koester:
Studied at the University of Marburg where he received his doctorate in 1954; he was ordained to the Lutheran ministry in 1956, and began teaching at Harvard Divinity School two years later.
Allan D Callahan:
An ordained Baptist minister, Allen Callahan's areas of interest include Greek and Coptic languages, biblical literature, ancient African Christianity, and African-American biblical interpretation.
John Dominic Crossan
He was co-chair of the Jesus Seminar from 1985 to 1996. Crossan received a doctorate of divinity from Maynooth College, Ireland, in 1959, and did post-doctoral research at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome from 1959 to1961 and at the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem from 1965 to 1967. (the Jesus Seminar was Pro Christian)
* Seem like upstanding devoted Christian folk to me.
W
“The bias is odviously on your part. Nobody knows for sure what a lot of people said throughout history”
* No bias, just an admission from your site, to do with , in this instance “Christianity”, and not “other people” in history.
W
“Fortunately for christians, that job was done for them with all the records placed together in the bible with all their minute inconsistencies to show they came from different sources.”
* The inconsistencies are glaring. Hardly minute. The alleged divinely inspired word of god should necesarrily be accurate, if it has to attain integrity.
The Torah, by comparison is uncannily consistent. (and also about 1700 years older)
“The Torah has nine spelling variants -- with absolutely no effect on the meaning of the words. The Christian Bible has over 200,000 variants and in 400 instances the variants change the meaning of the text. (http://www.aish.com/holidays/Shavuot/Accuracy_of_Torah_Text.asp)
W
“Can you think of a person that had more impact on future generations of the human populace than Jesus Christ?”
* You mean in the West Woody? Not including the billions of Chinese and Indians and Muslims?
W
“When you question the existence of Jesus, you question the very foundations of historicity. Applying the same standards to the rest of history, you relegate all of it to the trash heap.”
* Nice try, but unfortunately you are being a little dishonest here. The authenticity of many historic figures have been questioned, some have been verified, some dismissed, and some are still undecided, like your Jesus.
W
“Why don't you just admit you are in denial?”
* Now isn’t that so typical? The problem MUST lie with ME.
“This FRONTLINE series is an intellectual and visual guide to the new and controversial historical evidence which challenges familiar assumptions about the life of Jesus and the epic rise of Christianity.”
“This site is anchored by the testimony of New Testament theologians, archaeologists and historians who serve as both critics and storytellers.”
* Seems like TESTIMONY to me. This is a predominately Pro Christian site, albeit with a sound academic functionality. Conceded.
* Your unbiased academics:
Helmut Koester:
Studied at the University of Marburg where he received his doctorate in 1954; he was ordained to the Lutheran ministry in 1956, and began teaching at Harvard Divinity School two years later.
Allan D Callahan:
An ordained Baptist minister, Allen Callahan's areas of interest include Greek and Coptic languages, biblical literature, ancient African Christianity, and African-American biblical interpretation.
John Dominic Crossan
He was co-chair of the Jesus Seminar from 1985 to 1996. Crossan received a doctorate of divinity from Maynooth College, Ireland, in 1959, and did post-doctoral research at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome from 1959 to1961 and at the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem from 1965 to 1967. (the Jesus Seminar was Pro Christian)
* Seem like upstanding devoted Christian folk to me.
W
“The bias is odviously on your part. Nobody knows for sure what a lot of people said throughout history”
* No bias, just an admission from your site, to do with , in this instance “Christianity”, and not “other people” in history.
W
“Fortunately for christians, that job was done for them with all the records placed together in the bible with all their minute inconsistencies to show they came from different sources.”
* The inconsistencies are glaring. Hardly minute. The alleged divinely inspired word of god should necesarrily be accurate, if it has to attain integrity.
The Torah, by comparison is uncannily consistent. (and also about 1700 years older)
“The Torah has nine spelling variants -- with absolutely no effect on the meaning of the words. The Christian Bible has over 200,000 variants and in 400 instances the variants change the meaning of the text. (http://www.aish.com/holidays/Shavuot/Accuracy_of_Torah_Text.asp)
W
“Can you think of a person that had more impact on future generations of the human populace than Jesus Christ?”
* You mean in the West Woody? Not including the billions of Chinese and Indians and Muslims?
W
“When you question the existence of Jesus, you question the very foundations of historicity. Applying the same standards to the rest of history, you relegate all of it to the trash heap.”
* Nice try, but unfortunately you are being a little dishonest here. The authenticity of many historic figures have been questioned, some have been verified, some dismissed, and some are still undecided, like your Jesus.
W
“Why don't you just admit you are in denial?”
* Now isn’t that so typical? The problem MUST lie with ME.
TheVisitor said:
*************
M*W: For the record, you're full of shit. The virgin referred to by Isaiah was NOT Jesus. Where the hell have you read this? Secondly, Isaiah was referring to his own son whom he believed would be a 'savior'. The gospel writers created stories of fulfillment to make it appear that Jesus was a real person. None of the alleged gospel writers knew Jesus personally.
Besides, creative power is not something reserved for a deity. Humans have creative power. (Well, maybe not you).
http://www.mesora.org/Isaiah53.htm
http://bprc.org/topics/fulfill.html
http://christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/virgin.html
Last edited:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.htm
haha i have been asserting this for over a year, and now people start discussing it.
glad you guys are seeing it now.
haha i have been asserting this for over a year, and now people start discussing it.
glad you guys are seeing it now.I didn't say "a" diety, although the bible calls those whom the Word of God came to, Gods and they were.
Prophets....as were moved by the spirit.
Now there is those "led by the spirit of God that are called the sons of god"
That would be christians.
So how do you claim I limited this "creative power" to deity.
Man walking after the spirit, born by the spirit, doing that which the father shows......revealed by Word and vision...is deity.
A human in whom the spirit of God is dwelling - can speak with creative power.
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
Medicine Woman said:
Ok, right, yes I see. You're suggesting we take a leaf out of the Creationists book. Let's denigrate the evidence, disregard the evidence, argue from total ignorance of the evidence, make fallacious arguments from purported "gaps" in the evidence. Because tearing down Christianity is far more important than the truth.Cris said:
No, actually let's not. I am an atheist because I am a rationalist and a skeptical thinker, not because I believe that Christianity or religion as a whole must be torn down and destroyed wholesale. In any argument I support the side that doesn't have to distort the truth in order to make its point. I'm not convinced by arguments that Jesus never existed, and I note in addition that there is an agenda. I argued about this earlier, to be dismissed by SnakeLord (though I take him at his word that he doesn't have an anti-Christian agenda), but you appear to have no difficulty allowing the idea of knocking the pins out from under Christianity to colour your view. I will have no truck with that kind of thinking, and neither should you, or any skeptical thinker.
No, you appear to be confusing the ends with the means. I haven't the faintest interest in finding out that Jesus didn't exist because that would mean the end of Christianity. Also, you are confusing the inductive nature of scientific theory with what is regarded as perfectly rational deduction as the basis of historical study. Occam's razor still applies, and makes a nonsense of the Jesus story having been made up.
I'm not interested in Christian claims. I'm interested in why people who have rejected God through rationality have now rejected Rationality in order to prove something about God. Much more accepted Roman history has no independent backup at all. But what we think we know is considered history because at this distance of time there is no other way. Also, the parts of Roman history with only a single source are consistent with other parts of Roman history. The Jesus story is certainly backed up to that extent. In point of fact it has a pretty major "independent source" - that is the undenied existence of a Christian movement no later than AD 100. Now, just as it would be stupid to reject a piece of Roman history such as a minor battle, because it was only specifically cited in one source, when other things that don't mention the battle are still consistent with it, it is stupid in my view to believe that the early Christian movement was based upon a fiction, a ready-made myth. That is far harder to believe than the concept that it began at least by one man who attracted followers.
Bollocks.
Crap. Her primary skill is bamboozling. Seriously, I've never read her work, but if she's the one who has convinced Medicine Woman that Paul of Tarsus never existed because Tarsus sounds like Taurus, then she's quite definitely talking out of her arse. I'm not about to give that woman, or any other purveyor of utter nonsense, any more profit from a book what they wrote. I make my decisions on whether to give someone my hard earned dollar on whether they are trying to convince a skeptical thinker, or trying to get the gullible. Her book covers and her web site, are specifically designed to attract only those people who don't have a clue, and are not designed to interest anyone who has a remotely skeptical bone in their body. This is evidently New Age nonsense of the highest order.
Why are the opinions of Earl Doherty and Acharya S (I pointed out the ludicrousness of believing what is said by someone with an evidently pretentious pseudonym) so much more important and worthy of consideration than the far larger number of creditable people whose life work is the study of the history of the period, and who have commented specifically on the Jesus Myth issue and found it wanting?
Like what? What is your basis for dismissing the letters of Paul and the synoptic Gospels as valid historical sources as inferior to Herodotus, Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius et al? If it comes to "solid proof", people have actually made "Jesus myth" arguments on the basis that the oldest substantial NT manuscripts are 3rd and 4th century - well, actually the Christian manuscripts are far far older than anything we have of the other writings of the period!
Now you're the one making fallacious arguments. We must not make arguments from silence or from the absence of completely hard evidence, like, I don't know, a grave, with analysable DNA in bones, or something. Jesus's existence is not something that can be decided by evidence on that basis, but that does not mean the default position should be that he did not exist, when that position involves a far less likely story. If Jesus never existed, then the story of his life would have to have been a very specific fiction created at a specific time, capable of convincing people perfectly well aware that they had no memory of the events or even of the rumour of the events.
Moses and Abraham are old folk heroes, whose tales obviously "grew in the telling" over a period of maybe as much as five hundred years before being written down. That is myth. There is no way to make a connection with a living Moses or a living Abraham. The story of Jesus was written down considreably less than 50 years after the events, with one man writing of his belief in Jesus's divine nature within 20 years of the events. For this to be myth - to the extent that there never was a Jesus, Galilean Carpenter, Jewish troublemaker and crucifixee, or any analogue of such, and that specific events mentioned in the Gospels never took place - requires an entirely new form of fictional creation that simply is not found elsewhere in the literature of the period. It's not analogous to myth in the sense that Wells, Doherty and Thomas L. Thompson try to convince you of, and it is in no way similar to the way fictional stories were crafted in those days.
Ironically, the arguments for the Jesus Myth seem to me to be derived from thinking which itself is coming more and more to be regarded as misguided - the fallacy that something that happened a long time ago is less believable, and that the recorders of events of two thousand or more years ago are somehow less reliable. This is a fallacy based on our view of modern life, and it can colour ones views of all ancient history, not just Christian. Thomas L. Thompson extends his contention that the kind of writing in the bible is "fictive, not historical", to claiming that "to state that there was such an event is a serious error." I simply do not see that if we've had, in the Bible, a 2,500 year old description of ancient conflicts between Israel and, say, Moab or Assyria, (and accept that they're not accurately recorded history), and then in only the last 100 years we find Moabite or Assyrian inscriptions which describe conflicts with Israel (and accept that they too are not accurate recorded history), we can then conclude that there never were any conflicts or wars between Israel and Moab or Assyria. But this is the kind of conclusion that Thompson tries to get his readers to accept. I have his The Bible in History, which deals with the Old Testament, and was not surprised to discover through Amazon that Thompson also has joined the Jesus Myth debate. It seems to be "all or nothing" with him - and simply because something is written down in the Bible seems to be enough for him to consider it entirely fictional.
My own view is the opposite of this. I rejected God and Christianity a long time ago, but that is not going to deter me from acknowledging that the New Testament is one of the most incredibly detailed descriptions of life in the 1st Century, backed up in four different "histories", plus epistolatory accounts. It is Christianity's incredible hold on the imagination of those who first espoused it that led to these documents being better preserved than any other equivalent historical text. The hagiographic nature of those documents does not reduce their historical value any more than Tacitus's distinctly political and coloured view he had of tyrranical dynasties reduces the value of the Annals or the Agricola, nor the value of Josephus's and Suetonius's histories which were quite specifically aimed to please the Flavian emperors!
Godless said:Hey! MedcineWoman; some of these links didn't work!.
*************
M*W: Thanks for letting me know. Normally I double-check them, but I didn't this time. I've fixed them. Probably nobody else noticed!