XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:05:46 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 7/17/2015 10:31 AM, mur wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 09:00:47 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   >> .   
   >>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 22:19:30 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:18:56 -0600, David Johnston    
   wrote:   
   >>>> .   
   >>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:55:34 -0400, 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:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> [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,   
   >>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)