XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 18:22:11 -0400, Vincent Maycock wrote:
.
>On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 14:03:56 -0400, mur wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 18:17:10 -0400, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>.
>>>On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:22:20 -0400, mur wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 30 May 2015 12:36:34 +0100, "Alex W." wrote:
>>>>.
>>>>>On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:36:27 -0600, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/22/2015 10:03 AM, mur wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 May 2015 22:01:33 -0600, David Johnston
wrote:
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2015 8:03 PM, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:49:38 -0600, David Johnston
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2015 5:58 PM, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:45:06 -0500, duke
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 17:58:32 -0600, David Johnston
David@block.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2015 7:24 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 19:07:02 -0600, David Johnston
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2015 2:14 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:32:02 -0600, David Johnston
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2015 5:28 AM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Too much hair splitting. Evidence exists for the presence
of God - it can't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denied. One may not like it, but none the less, it stares
them in the face,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An atheist denies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see that you regard consistency as too much trouble to
bother with.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You see wrong. I'm highly consistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either it can't be denied, or atheists deny it. Pick one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The item that nails the supposed atheist is that he rejects
evidence we see.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah. I've seen a bible too. But Harry Potter was a more fun
read.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But not any truth at all. Unless you think you can ride a broom
stick.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> These people can't distinguish between things we know are
fiction and things
>>>>>>>>>>> no one could know are fiction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Really? So we can't know that there was no world wide flood that
wiped
>>>>>>>>>> out all life on land some four thousand years ago?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure we can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then what were you referring to?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can't know if Jesus was a virgin birth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that matter when the only indication that he was a virgin birth is
>>>>>> a book that claims that all life on land was wiped out four thousand
>>>>>> years ago?
>>>>>
>>>>>We know it doesn't matter because we now know that the issue
>>>>>of Mary's virginity was a translation error.
>>>>
>>>> How did we find that out?
>>>
>>>Alex is talking about the passage from Isaiah that supposedly predicts
>>>Jesus' virgin birth centuries in advance of its supposed occurrence.
>>>It's difficult to tell *when* we first learned that there was a
>>>mistranslation there. The Hebrew just means "young girl," and I
>>>suppose everyone who can read Hebrew would have known about it.
>>>
>>>In the Gospels, Jesus is clearly portrayed as being born to a virgin
>>>girl (part of the non-historical portion of the Gospels -- AKA most
>>>of each of them); there's no mistranslation there.
>>>
>>>But the Isaiah passage has more problems than just having been
>>>mistranslated for centuries: it's not even talking about Jesus to
>>>begin.
>>>
>>>The setting of the prophecy is the land of Israel soon before it was
>>>demolished by Assyria, and in the story Isaiah tells King Ahaz about
>>>the timescale of the military problems he would have when dealing with
>>>Assyria --
>>>
>>>namely, about as long as it would take for a young woman to become
>>>pregnant and raise a child that was old enough to eat curds and honey,
>>>and choose right from wrong; that is, Ahaz's military destruction
>>>would happen *that quickly.*
>>>
>>>So Isaiah 7 (the reference in question) isn't even referring to
>>>Jesus, and if the bizarre idea of a virgin birth were found in this
>>>passage, it would refer to the child that King Ahaz knew about that
>>>Isaiah was threatening him with, and not to Jesus.
>>
>> Then why does it refer to Jesus having had a virgin birth in the Koran?
>
>Probably because Islam was founded long after the details of
>Christianity were well-known in the Middle East, so if someone wanted
>to describe Christianity at that time, he would just use the
>terminology that he heard Christians use to describe their own ideas,
>when he described them himself.
>
>So in other words, Muslims got the idea from the Christians they knew
>about; they didn't have some secret access to the nature of Jesus'
>birth.
Where in the Bible does it refer to Jesus explaining things when he was
still in the cradle, like it does in the Koran:
[Maryam 19:27] Then she brought him to her own folk, carrying
him. They said: O Mary! Thou hast come with an amazing thing.
[Maryam 19:28] O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked
man nor was thy mother a harlot.
[Maryam 19:29] Then she pointed to him. They said: How can we
talk to one who is in the cradle, a young boy ?
[Maryam 19:30] He spake: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath
given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet,
[Maryam 19:31] And hath made me blessed wheresoever I may
be, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I
remain alive,
[Maryam 19:32] And (hath made me) dutiful toward her who bore
me, and hath not made me arrogant, unblest.
[Maryam 19:33] Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I
die, and the day I shall be raised alive!
[Maryam 19:34] Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement
of the truth concerning which they doubt.
÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷
[Al-Imran 3:45] (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary!
Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is
the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the
Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).
[Al-Imran 3:46] He will speak unto mankind in his cradle and in his
manhood, and he is of the righteous.
[Al-Imran 3:47] She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when
no mortal hath touched me ? He said: So (it will be). Allah createth
what He will. If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it
is.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
