XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:45:04 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:03:39 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 21:44:16 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>On 7/21/2015 10:41 PM, mur wrote:   
   >>>> 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 <   
   am100@aol.com> 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 <   
   uckgumbo32@cox.net> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)