What will we replace religion with?

Provoking the authorities into killing you to prove some philosophical point is not quite the same thing as armed rebellion is it? Provoking the authorities into killing to prove a philosophical and metaphysical point is not quite the same thing as giving yourself up in payment of ransom is it?

Jesus was, by all accounts, a heretical rebel from the point of view of the Jewish leaders, so you must be making an "armed rebellion" out to have some added significance. Ransom? Jesus was purportedly a ransom paid for everyone. So whatever distinction you are trying to make is unclear.

At what point does the bible leave off analogies, parables and allegory and change over to truth? How do you know when to take the words literally and when to interpret them as allegory? Is any part of it physical literal truth? Or all of it. The reason I ask is because you keep quoting it to me as authority, and I wish to know how "authoritative" you personally take it. Until I know where facts and allegory start and stop, I'm at the disadvantage that most sophists try place their opponent in.

All metaphysical "truths" tend to be highly subjective. Things like the Bible are only as authoritative as you find them useful, and in whatever manor you find them useful, whether literal or figurative. If you find it no more useful than fanciful myth, then I find it silly that you would argue about it. Personally, I keep it in mind that the Bible was written for ancient man, from the perspective of ancient men. I see no reason to impose the false dilemma that it should be either all literal truth or none at all, after all, it does include explicitly stated parables.

But if you want to argue about what Jesus purportedly did, there really are not many sources on the matter.
 
It was I who brought up the phrase 'holy mouthpieces'. I believe that the Hebrew root word for prophet is precisely that- a mouthpiece. I took the liberty of adding 'holy' because we all know whose mouthpieces prophets are supposed to be. and yes, they are often from humble origins, shepherds and the like though some were priests or destined to be kings.
Since all of your ideas about religion are predicated on treating the legends and myths as historical narratives, the burden of being "God's mouthpieces" falls squarely on the shoulders of whoever invented these stories. To some extent, esp. as a Catholic, you would want to include the many scholars who continued to expound on Catholic theology for the next 2 millennia.

But the entire premise is wrong, which devalues the mouthpieces. It never was more than legend and myth. Therein lies the rub.

Just to throw our scoffing friends a bone though: Moses was said to be the humblest man who ever lived.
No one knows who knew a man named Moses, or whether such a man ever existed. He also existed purely as a legend. There is no evidence to suggest that this person ever existed. There is evidence from the texts of Egypt that nothing significant happened in the era the legend says the Hebrew presence created havoc there. Ignoring all the magic in the story, nothing ever happened to the Pharoah's wife and son. Of course the legend has no idea which Pharoah it was, which suggests that no Hebrew person was ever there anyway. There are no artifacts found of a Jewish habitation of Egypt proper. There is evidence of that Hebrew people inhabited Elephantine Island on the Nile, but it's unknown when they were there.

However it is also said that he wrote the first five books of the Old Testament which is where it is written that Moses was the humblest man who had ever lived.
And no scholar would tell you that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. They will however tell you of 4 or 5 sources of the text which are distinguishable by careful analysis. They will also explain the best evidence for when various fragments of the story were added, and give you an approximate timeline, spanning ca. 1500 to 500 BCE, the latter of which mainly took place while they were captives of Babylon.

So how humble was he really? A question that has stumped biblical scholars for centuries. Nonetheless Moses showed proof of his office with many actions. (We call them 'miracles')
But those are just fairy tales. Nothing of the kind ever happened. As I mention, Egyptian writings of the assumed era of the so-called captivity show nothing out of the ordinary except for an invasion of a people they call The Sea People, who appear to be Phoenicians or possibly Minoans. Nothing else was going on.

Jesus preached humility, but He behaved certainly anything but humbly on a number of occasions, but again bolstered His mission with a parcel of miracles unparalleled before or since.
There were plenty of tales of magic even more fantastic than in the New Testament, from the other religions of that era. All of Greek mythology covers a lot of ground. And it covers all of the essence of ethics and justice Jesus talks about. Plato's Utopia covers the entire premise of attaining a sort of Paradise, and the Epic of Gilgamesh is just as full of miracles as any other myth of that time. The Vedas is full of miracles, as is the Koran. Same with the legends of Native Americans or Africans. There were plenty of stories just as fantastic which came later. I think it's the other way around. There is almost never a time in history when people didn't invent stories of this ilk. As I've mentioned before, Jesus is no more wonderful than Socrates. Socrates is just presented as a real person, not a magician. He certainly is humble, and he certainly was prosecuted and sentenced to death for his belief in "the Father God", to martyr himself for the benefit of people at large, and willingly.


Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? - Matthew 9:5
They both are as easy as saying "Once upon a time . . ." Effortless!


Declan Lunny said:
Provoking the authorities into killing you to prove some philosophical point is not quite the same thing as armed rebellion is it? Provoking the authorities into killing to prove a philosophical and metaphysical point is not quite the same thing as giving yourself up in payment of ransom is it?
This brings to mind that crucifixion was the Roman equivalent of scalping, or cannibalism. It was effectively robbing the person of all dignity ("stealing the soul") and done as a last resort, esp to horrify other potential violators - to act as a deterrent. It was reserved for the most heinous crimes, including rebellion. More to the point, Josephus tells us that this was going on all the time during the rebellion. Even more to the point, the Jewish rebellion against Rome was a historical fact. There actually was a bloody, crushing defeat by a titan on the little wimp, Judaea. And oddly enough, the collapse of the Temple in the Crucifixion story is a metaphor for the much more serious historical fact, that such a thing actually occurred. The Romans actually demolished the Temple. But that's never even mentioned in the Legend of Jesus.

By putting the destruction of the Temple in the background instead of the foreground, the story tellers minimize the enormity of the massacres that actually took place. Either that, or else Jesus was intended at first to be a metaphor for the victims, for all Judaeans who were abused, taunted, tortured and murdered under some pretense of justice while the Jewish council, the puppets of Roman governors just let it happen. All of Judea can be seen as the sacrificial lamb, in that they obstinately refused to just let the Romans do what they wanted to do.

Putting these facts together, the legend of Jesus appears to conflate the story of a convicted rebel with the Apochryphal stories (not much older) of a hero who would restore the Temple and protect it from further desecration. How and why the actual history got lost in the legend is anybody's guess. But I can think of folk legends of American origin that do something similar. That would include folksongs, in which some other theme obliterates the factual details and severity of atrocities that actually took place.

At what point does the bible leave off analogies, parables and allegory and change over to truth? How do you know when to take the words literally and when to interpret them as allegory? Is any part of it physical literal truth? Or all of it. The reason I ask is because you keep quoting it to me as authority, and I wish to know how "authoritative" you personally take it. Until I know where facts and allegory start and stop, I'm at the disadvantage that most sophists try place their opponent in.
It seems to me that instead of them worrying about the curriculum for science the non-Christians should be worried about the teaching of rhetorical analysis. Maybe they should be taking the states to trial, demanding that a week or two of every English class be devoted to rhetorical elements of the Bible - with a parallel unit in world history. Every high school graduate should be able to label a Bible passage as myth, legend and/or fable, and to trace those stories to the civilizations and religions that the Jewish, Christian and Muslim storytellers were borrowing from. I think that would nip a lot of this in the bud.
 
And would you equally call a martyr a suicide? A martyr would, at some point, be just as aware of the impending threat and be just as unwilling to give up their principles to avoid it. IOW, was William Wallace in Braveheart (yes, I seem to be on a movie reference kick) a suicide by cop? Certainly you must think so, as he provoked the authorities, at some point knowing the likely outcome.

That is the real message of any such martyr's sacrifice. That some ideas are more important than life. If you really wish to tarnish such noble sentiment as being a suicide you are welcomed to it.

Yes..how noble it tis being a martyr:

"In psychology, a person who has a martyr complex, sometimes associated with the term victim complex, desires the feeling of being a martyr for his/her own sake, seeking out suffering or persecution because it feeds a psychological need.

In some cases, this results from the belief that the martyr has been singled out for persecution because of exceptional ability or integrity.[1] Theologian Paul Johnson considers such beliefs a topic of concern for the mental health of clergy.[2] Other martyr complexes involve willful suffering in the name of love or duty. This has been observed in women, especially in poor families, as well as in codependent or abusive relationships.[3][4] It has also been described as a facet of Jewish-American folklore.

The desire for martyrdom is sometimes considered a form of masochism. Allan Berger, however, described it as one of several patterns of "pain/suffering seeking behavior", including asceticism and penance."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr_complex
 
Yes..how noble it tis being a martyr:

"In psychology, a person who has a martyr complex, sometimes associated with the term victim complex, desires the feeling of being a martyr for his/her own sake, seeking out suffering or persecution because it feeds a psychological need.

In some cases, this results from the belief that the martyr has been singled out for persecution because of exceptional ability or integrity.[1] Theologian Paul Johnson considers such beliefs a topic of concern for the mental health of clergy.[2] Other martyr complexes involve willful suffering in the name of love or duty. This has been observed in women, especially in poor families, as well as in codependent or abusive relationships.[3][4] It has also been described as a facet of Jewish-American folklore.

The desire for martyrdom is sometimes considered a form of masochism. Allan Berger, however, described it as one of several patterns of "pain/suffering seeking behavior", including asceticism and penance."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr_complex

Not surprising that Syne gets clinical when discussing concepts he disagrees with, and romantic about ones he supports.
 
But the entire premise is wrong, which devalues the mouthpieces. It never was more than legend and myth. Therein lies the rub.
So do you just doubt The Bible, or do you doubt the existence of God? If the latter, I don't know what else we have to say to one another. What I have read says there is plenty of veracity to The Bible. Moreover there are the hundreds of prophecies that have come true. I suppose you will say that it is theological shills and those with vested interest that say so, but I know that that is not always the case. And some scientific theorists behave in much the same way. For you to be so vehement in doubting The Word of God makes me think that you are close-minded and even blind to the world around you. I know something of the opinions you accept unquestioningly, and I know something of the opposing opinions, and these pro-Biblical opinions and my own experiences make it crystal clear that God exists, and that for the love of us He took human form and redeemed our sins. Why so stubborn? You can love science and scholarship and The Lord as well.

Ah! How about sin, or let's call it 'right and wrong'. Do you think there are such things, or should every man just do as he thinks best? Where did our innate sense of right and justice come from? Every culture in the world, and even feral children know right from wrong. I know they do. Cultures may disagree about whether you should have one wife or four, but none believe you should just have any woman you want. No culture admires betrayal or greed or laziness, etc. Where from does our innate sense of right and wrong come if we are not made in His image? Because This sense and our reason are what being made in His image means. It doesn't mean anything silly like God has arms and legs and a fuzzy head. It means that we can think.
 
So do you just doubt The Bible, or do you doubt the existence of God? If the latter, I don't know what else we have to say to one another. What I have read says there is plenty of veracity to The Bible. Moreover there are the hundreds of prophecies that have come true. I suppose you will say that it is theological shills and those with vested interest that say so, but I know that that is not always the case. And some scientific theorists behave in much the same way. For you to be so vehement in doubting The Word of God makes me think that you are close-minded and even blind to the world around you. I know something of the opinions you accept unquestioningly, and I know something of the opposing opinions, and these pro-Biblical opinions and my own experiences make it crystal clear that God exists, and that for the love of us He took human form and redeemed our sins. Why so stubborn? You can love science and scholarship and The Lord as well.

Ah! How about sin, or let's call it 'right and wrong'. Do you think there are such things, or should every man just do as he thinks best? Where did our innate sense of right and justice come from? Every culture in the world, and even feral children know right from wrong. I know they do. Cultures may disagree about whether you should have one wife or four, but none believe you should just have any woman you want. No culture admires betrayal or greed or laziness, etc. Where from does our innate sense of right and wrong come if we are not made in His image? Because This sense and our reason are what being made in His image means. It doesn't mean anything silly like God has arms and legs and a fuzzy head. It means that we can think.
Right and wrong comes from our empathic abilities which evolved as social primates.

No specific Biblical prophesies have ever come true.
 
No specific Biblical prophesies have ever come true.
The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem
Bible passage: Micah 5:1-2
Prophet: Micah
Written: Sometime between 750-686 BC

In Micah 5:2, there is a prophecy that reveals that Bethlehem would be the birthplace of the Messiah.

As pointed out in the book, 100 Prophecies:
"The prophecy, which was written about 700 years before the birth of Jesus, is effective in a simple way: It eliminates all other cities and towns throughout the world as a place in which the Messiah would be born. It narrows the possibilities to one tiny village, near Jerusalem. And throughout the span of the past 27 centuries, since the time of the prophet Micah, Bethlehem is credited as being the birthplace for the only person who is widely accepted as being the Messiah, by people throughout the world, and that person is Jesus Christ."
- 100 Prophecies, Chapter 3.

The New Testament books of Matthew and Luke name the town of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. Matthew 2:1-6 describes the birth of Jesus as the fulfillment of Micah's prophecy.
In recent years, however, some non-believers have tried to discredit Matthew's interpretation of Micah 5:2 by claiming that the prophecy refers to a person named Bethlehem, not a town named Bethlehem. This claim has been widely circulated on the Internet. One problem with this theory appears in Micah 5:1. In that verse, the prophet establishes that he is speaking of the town of Bethlehem, not a person named Bethlehem, by setting up a context in which he contrasts the great city of Jerusalem with the humble town of Bethlehem.

And, there is evidence outside of the Bible that shows that Micah 5:2 was regarded as a Messianic prophecy involving the town of Bethlehem. Here is an excerpt from the Jerusalem Talmud, which is a collection of Judaism-related writings completed about 1600 years ago:

"The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of Bethlehem in Judah." - Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth 5a.

- Research and commentary is based on the book 100 Prophecies. © Ray Konig and AboutBibleProphecy.com.

Here is Micah 5:1-2:

1 Marshal your troops, O city of troops, for a siege is laid against us. They will strike Israel's ruler on the cheek with a rod.

2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

(New International Version translation)
 
Unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific events-in detail-many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors.

(The remaining 500 or so reach into the future and may be seen unfolding as days go by.) Since the probability for any one of these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance averages less than one in ten (figured very conservatively) and since the prophecies are for the most part independent of one another, the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 102000 (that is 1 with 2000 zeros written after it)!

God is not the only one, however, who uses forecasts of future events to get people's attention. Satan does, too. Through clairvoyants (such as Jeanne Dixon and Edgar Cayce), mediums, spiritists, and others, come remarkable predictions, though rarely with more than about 60 percent accuracy, never with total accuracy. Messages from Satan, furthermore, fail to match the detail of Bible prophecies, nor do they include a call to repentance.

The acid test for identifying a prophet of God is recorded by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:21-22. According to this Bible passage (and others), God's prophets, as distinct from Satan's spokesmen, are 100 percent accurate in their predictions. There is no room for error.

As economy does not permit an explanation of all the Biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled, what follows in a discussion of a few that exemplify the high degree of specificity, the range of projection, and/or the "supernature" of the predicted events. Readers are encouraged to select others, as well, and to carefully examine their historicity.

(1) Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25-26). He further predicted that the Messiah would be "cut off," killed, and that this event would take place prior to a second destruction of Jerusalem. Abundant documentation shows that these prophecies were perfectly fulfilled in the life (and crucifixion) of Jesus Christ. The decree regarding the restoration of Jerusalem was issued by Persia's King Artaxerxes to the Hebrew priest Ezra in 458 B.C., 483 years later the ministry of Jesus Christ began in Galilee. (Remember that due to calendar changes, the date for the start of Christ's ministry is set by most historians at about 26 A.D. Also note that from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is just one year.) Jesus' crucifixion occurred only a few years later, and about four decades later, in 70 A.D. came the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 105.)*

(2) In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 105.)

(3) In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used—just as predicted—for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1011.)

(4) Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was, indeed, dead.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1013.)

(5) The prophet Isaiah foretold that a conqueror named Cyrus would destroy seemingly impregnable Babylon and subdue Egypt along with most of the rest of the known world. This same man, said Isaiah, would decide to let the Jewish exiles in his territory go free without any payment of ransom (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1; and 45:13). Isaiah made this prophecy 150 years before Cyrus was born, 180 years before Cyrus performed any of these feats (and he did, eventually, perform them all), and 80 years before the Jews were taken into exile.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1015.)

(6) Mighty Babylon, 196 miles square, was enclosed not only by a moat, but also by a double wall 330 feet high, each part 90 feet thick. It was said by unanimous popular opinion to be indestructible, yet two Bible prophets declared its doom. These prophets further claimed that the ruins would be avoided by travelers, that the city would never again be inhabited, and that its stones would not even be moved for use as building material (Isaiah 13:17-22 and Jeremiah 51:26, 43). Their description is, in fact, the well-documented history of the famous citadel.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 109.)

(7) The exact location and construction sequence of Jerusalem's nine suburbs was predicted by Jeremiah about 2600 years ago. He referred to the time of this building project as "the last days," that is, the time period of Israel's second rebirth as a nation in the land of Palestine (Jeremiah 31:38-40). This rebirth became history in 1948, and the construction of the nine suburbs has gone forward precisely in the locations and in the sequence predicted.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1018.)

(8) The prophet Moses foretold (with some additions by Jeremiah and Jesus) that the ancient Jewish nation would be conquered twice and that the people would be carried off as slaves each time, first by the Babylonians (for a period of 70 years), and then by a fourth world kingdom (which we know as Rome). The second conqueror, Moses said, would take the Jews captive to Egypt in ships, selling them or giving them away as slaves to all parts of the world. Both of these predictions were fulfilled to the letter, the first in 607 B.C. and the second in 70 A.D. God's spokesmen said, further, that the Jews would remain scattered throughout the entire world for many generations, but without becoming assimilated by the peoples or of other nations, and that the Jews would one day return to the land of Palestine to re-establish for a second time their nation (Deuteronomy 29; Isaiah 11:11-13; Jeremiah 25:11; Hosea 3:4-5 and Luke 21:23-24).

This prophetic statement sweeps across 3500 years of history to its complete fulfillment—in our lifetime.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 120.)

(9) Jeremiah predicted that despite its fertility and despite the accessibility of its water supply, the land of Edom (today a part of Jordan) would become a barren, uninhabited wasteland (Jeremiah 49:15-20; Ezekiel 25:12-14). His description accurately tells the history of that now bleak region.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 105.)

(10) Joshua prophesied that Jericho would be rebuilt by one man. He also said that the man's eldest son would die when the reconstruction began and that his youngest son would die when the work reached completion (Joshua 6:26). About five centuries later this prophecy found its fulfillment in the life and family of a man named Hiel (1 Kings 16:33-34).

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 107).

(11) The day of Elijah's supernatural departure from Earth was predicted unanimously—and accurately, according to the eye-witness account—by a group of fifty prophets (2 Kings 2:3-11).

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 109).

(12) Jahaziel prophesied that King Jehoshaphat and a tiny band of men would defeat an enormous, well-equipped, well-trained army without even having to fight. Just as predicted, the King and his troops stood looking on as their foes were supernaturally destroyed to the last man (2 Chronicles 20).

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 108).

(13) One prophet of God (unnamed, but probably Shemiah) said that a future king of Judah, named Josiah, would take the bones of all the occultic priests (priests of the "high places") of Israel's King Jeroboam and burn them on Jeroboam's altar (1 Kings 13:2 and 2 Kings 23:15-18). This event occurred approximately 300 years after it was foretold.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1013).

Since these thirteen prophecies cover mostly separate and independent events, the probability of chance occurrence for all thirteen is about 1 in 10138 (138 equals the sum of all the exponents of 10 in the probability estimates above). For the sake of putting the figure into perspective, this probability can be compared to the statistical chance that the second law of thermodynamics will be reversed in a given situation (for example, that a gasoline engine will refrigerate itself during its combustion cycle or that heat will flow from a cold body to a hot body)—that chance = 1 in 1080. Stating it simply, based on these thirteen prophecies alone, the Bible record may be said to be vastly more reliable than the second law of thermodynamics. Each reader should feel free to make his own reasonable estimates of probability for the chance fulfillment of the prophecies cited here. In any case, the probabilities deduced still will be absurdly remote.

Given that the Bible proves so reliable a document, there is every reason to expect that the remaining 500 prophecies, those slated for the "time of the end," also will be fulfilled to the last letter. Who can afford to ignore these coming events, much less miss out on the immeasurable blessings offered to anyone and everyone who submits to the control of the Bible's author, Jesus Christ? Would a reasonable person take lightly God's warning of judgment for those who reject what they know to be true about Jesus Christ and the Bible, or who reject Jesus' claim on their lives?

*The estimates of probability included herein come from a group of secular research scientists. As an example of their method of estimation, consider their calculations for this first prophecy cited:

Since the Messiah's ministry could conceivably begin in any one of about 5000 years, there is, then, one chance in about 5000 that his ministry could begin in 26 A.D.
Since the Messiah is God in human form, the possibility of his being killed is considerably low, say less than one chance in 10.
Relative to the second destruction of Jerusalem, this execution has roughly an even chance of occurring before or after that event, that is, one chance in 2.
Hence, the probability of chance fulfillment for this prophecy is 1 in 5000 x 10 x 2, which is 1 in 100,000, or 1 in 105.
 
Hebrew Scribes, Jewish priests painstakingly copied and preserved their Holy Scriptures for thousands of years. Do you meant to suggest they were lying? That's just plain anti-Semitic, that is!
 
The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem
Bible passage: Micah 5:1-2
Prophet: Micah
Written: Sometime between 750-686 BC

In Micah 5:2, there is a prophecy that reveals that Bethlehem would be the birthplace of the Messiah.

As pointed out in the book, 100 Prophecies:
"The prophecy, which was written about 700 years before the birth of Jesus, is effective in a simple way: It eliminates all other cities and towns throughout the world as a place in which the Messiah would be born. It narrows the possibilities to one tiny village, near Jerusalem. And throughout the span of the past 27 centuries, since the time of the prophet Micah, Bethlehem is credited as being the birthplace for the only person who is widely accepted as being the Messiah, by people throughout the world, and that person is Jesus Christ."
- 100 Prophecies, Chapter 3.

The New Testament books of Matthew and Luke name the town of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. Matthew 2:1-6 describes the birth of Jesus as the fulfillment of Micah's prophecy.
In recent years, however, some non-believers have tried to discredit Matthew's interpretation of Micah 5:2 by claiming that the prophecy refers to a person named Bethlehem, not a town named Bethlehem. This claim has been widely circulated on the Internet. One problem with this theory appears in Micah 5:1. In that verse, the prophet establishes that he is speaking of the town of Bethlehem, not a person named Bethlehem, by setting up a context in which he contrasts the great city of Jerusalem with the humble town of Bethlehem.

And, there is evidence outside of the Bible that shows that Micah 5:2 was regarded as a Messianic prophecy involving the town of Bethlehem. Here is an excerpt from the Jerusalem Talmud, which is a collection of Judaism-related writings completed about 1600 years ago:

"The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of Bethlehem in Judah." - Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth 5a.

- Research and commentary is based on the book 100 Prophecies. © Ray Konig and AboutBibleProphecy.com.

Here is Micah 5:1-2:

1 Marshal your troops, O city of troops, for a siege is laid against us. They will strike Israel's ruler on the cheek with a rod.

2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

(New International Version translation)

Not fulfilled by Jesus in the least. It says he will be a ruler of Israel. That's the last thing Jesus was. This is simply one among many examples of the disparity between the real Jewish prophecies of the Messiah and Jesus himself. The Jewish concept of the Messsiah was all about a great warrior/ruler who would rise up and establish Israel as a great kingdom on earth. Not only did this NOT happen with Jesus, but it hasn't really happened at all in the past 2500 years. Why do you think the Jews rejected Jesus? Because he didn't fit the bill for messiahship. He was a fanatical megalomaniacal essene preacher warning of the end of the world and the coming of his kingdom with angels on planet earth. Did it happen? No..and even after 2500 Christians are still waiting for it. How much more time is required to realize that that prophecy just ain't gonna happen?
 
Hebrew Scribes, Jewish priests painstakingly copied and preserved their Holy Scriptures for thousands of years. Do you meant to suggest they were lying? That's just plain anti-Semitic, that is!
Give me a break, I'm Jewish. And yes, they lied all the time. Back then, no one thought that creative writing was a sin. But, my dear, Jesus is thought to have been born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem. This is a fine example as any of the more modern authors of the Bible trying to make ancient prophecies come true. By the way, no Jew believes that Jesus was the messiah, since he did not restore the kingdom.
 
Hebrew Scribes, Jewish priests painstakingly copied and preserved their Holy Scriptures for thousands of years. Do you meant to suggest they were lying? That's just plain anti-Semitic, that is!

What does race/ethnicity have to do with it? You seem rather bigoted by claiming that only the Jewish priests and scribes got it right, and all the "others" priests and scribes got it wrong. Magical mumbo jumbo is magical mumbo jumbo regardless of who's doing the scribing.
 
What does race/ethnicity have to do with it? You seem rather bigoted by claiming that only the Jewish priests and scribes got it right, and all the "others" priests and scribes got it wrong. Magical mumbo jumbo is magical mumbo jumbo regardless of who's doing the scribing.

Garbage in, garbage out. What's even more amazing is that Arne managed to figure out the exact probability of prophecy fulfillment! Apparently there was an astounding 1 in 105 chance that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem! Those are pretty good odds. Given 105 prophets, one of them was bound to get it right... right?

And I love how the Bible is evidence for itself!

I wonder if the Jews are just as convinced about their book?
 
What does race/ethnicity have to do with it? You seem rather bigoted by claiming that only the Jewish priests and scribes got it right, and all the "others" priests and scribes got it wrong. Magical mumbo jumbo is magical mumbo jumbo regardless of who's doing the scribing.

I don't think he said others got it wrong, though that may be implied. Either way, it's not bigotry to claim that your religion is the one true religion. It's silly, to say the least, but let's not start slinging baseless accusations around.
 
Hebrew Scribes, Jewish priests painstakingly copied and preserved their Holy Scriptures for thousands of years.
No one knows who copied what when and how painstaking or well preserved they were. The oldest complete Old Testament is dated 930AD and is missing about half of its pages. The oldest fragments of scattered Bible verses are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are dated ca. 200 BCE. Most of the Torah and Prophets are believed to have been composed between the 8 and 6th c BCE, and the Writings from about 5th - 2d c BCE.

Do you meant to suggest they were lying?
How does a person -- repeating a myth, fable or legend -- lie?

That's just plain anti-Semitic, that is!
No, it's just plain exegesis.

So do you just doubt The Bible, or do you doubt the existence of God?
Just as I know for a fact that the myths, legends and fables of the Bible describe a superstitious people who invented gods to explain phenomena for which they had no science, I know that God is an invention.

If the latter, I don't know what else we have to say to one another.
I suppose you could argue that God is not an invention.

What I have read says there is plenty of veracity to The Bible.
The key to reading the Bible is to be able to distinguish its myths, legends and fables from historical narrative. The rest is exegesis.

Moreover there are the hundreds of prophecies that have come true.
That's a common myth that results from the erroneous belief that the passages were written before the events they relate.

I suppose you will say that it is theological shills and those with vested interest that say so, but I know that that is not always the case.
Exegesis marries language, history, anthropology and theology. It's a field of academic inquiry at most major seminaries and colleges of theology in the world.

And some scientific theorists behave in much the same way.
Most scientists took the same core courses in literature and world history that teach ancient mythology.

For you to be so vehement in doubting The Word of God makes me think that you are close-minded and even blind to the world around you.
The stories were written by people, borrowing from oral trandition. That is the fact obscured by blind faith.

I know something of the opinions you accept unquestioningly,
My general statements are based in fact. There is no basis for questioning them: you can not erase the Code of Hammurabi, the references to El at Ugarit, the Gilgamesh epic, the Egyptian references to the Sea People, and the evidence at Elephantine Island . . . among the items I mentioned.

and I know something of the opposing opinions, and these pro-Biblical opinions and my own experiences make it crystal clear that God exists,
That's based on the fallacy of treating myth, legend and fable as historical narrative.

and that for the love of us He took human form and redeemed our sins.
As I mentioned, that's only one the many versions of Jesus that were invented. You will find another version in Revelations, the Gospel of Thomas, Plato's description of Socrates and the legend of Mithra.

Why so stubborn? You can love science and scholarship and The Lord as well.
Scholarship loves the truth. The truth of myth is that it is myth, not literal truth.

Ah! How about sin, or let's call it 'right and wrong'. Do you think there are such things, or should every man just do as he thinks best?
Your book and your religion do not establish the moral standards of the world. They stand on their own principles. If not for a few random twists of historical fate, you would be selling the Code of Hammurabi, or of Confucius, or the Right Thinking of the Theravada Buddhism, in place of Christianity.

Where did our innate sense of right and justice come from?
Not from invented causes, but from biological ones.

Every culture in the world, and even feral children know right from wrong. I know they do.
Ok now you're getting warm.

Cultures may disagree about whether you should have one wife or four, but none believe you should just have any woman you want.
Except the patrons of the world's oldest profession, not to mention all the people that engage in casual sex as a matter of preference.

No culture admires betrayal or greed or laziness, etc. Where from does our innate sense of right and wrong come if we are not made in His image?
Ask Hammurabi, Confucius, Plato or Siddhartha Guatama.

Because This sense and our reason are what being made in His image means. It doesn't mean anything silly like God has arms and legs and a fuzzy head. It means that we can think.
Thinking is purely a biological faculty. Superstitious explanations are no longer required to explain the cause of human faculties.
 
I don't think he said others got it wrong, though that may be implied. Either way, it's not bigotry to claim that your religion is the one true religion. It's silly, to say the least, but let's not start slinging baseless accusations around.

I was responding to the silly accusation that by denying the truth in the bible, that I am anti-Semitic. I mere pointed out the hypocrisy of that statement.
 
Back
Top