XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: David@block.net
On 6/26/2015 7:55 PM, mur wrote:
> 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
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:
And it's impossible, impossible! for mere human beings to make shit up.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
