By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[ElishaElijah]

Those very ones you claim predicted Jesus. They are vague and, I think it is clear, misinterpreted by Christians.

Well you still haven’t listed any…

 

[metis]

Everyone knows that Zeus is mythological.

Say WHAT???

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The big difference is quite obvious. Everyone knows that Zeus is mythological. El Elyon is not.

And yet the ancient Greeks would have flipped that around. Zeus upholds the order of the Cosmos. This Yahweh of some people who are so savage and barbaric they don't even have a proper city and temple?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

That is an interpretation that you are welcome to entertain IMV

And you are welcome to entertain whatever interpretation of Jesus you wish as well, IMV.

The story of the Messiah was instituted from the beginning to all mankind. How religions used it can be seen. We simply hold that the TaNaKh is correct.

In your opinion, of course. Perhaps you shouldn't state your personal Christian beliefs as if they are definitive facts.

Much like there are many stories about Daniel Boone that are fabricated but doesn’t change the reality that there is a Daniel Boone.

If Jesus even existed, then I believe he was not as his devout followers depicted him to be.

Re-stating what I wrote in the post I linked earlier:

Based on the information I've read, if a religious leader named Yehoshua (also called Yeshua or Jesus) existed in biblical times, he was most likely just an ordinary man and popular religious teacher whose devoted followers embellished the stories about him, and more embellishment and folklore were later added to these stories to make him appear to be more than he actually was. I believe that it's probable that he was simply a well-liked religious teacher whose loyal followers spread false stories about him to make him appear godlike. I also think that it's likely that a few stories about him were copied and adapted from Greek mythology and other ancient pagan religions, which predate Christianity and the Bible. In my opinion, it's plagiarized pagan myths.

The big difference is quite obvious. Everyone knows that Zeus is mythological. El Elyon is not.

I'm sure it seems quite obvious in your opinion, but it is just your opinion.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree, I do the same with Scripture. When the Scriptures make sense seek no other sense.
I made it my aim to know God my Creator and enjoy fellowship with Him. The word of the Lord comes to me and is effective.
Psalm 1 for example, I’ve lived on both ends of that, have experienced both in my lifetime.

We know the universe exists. There is no need to assume more to explain what we see.

In particular, the Bible flatly contradicts what see find: the earth is not flat, there is no dome over it, there are no pillars upon which it rests, it does not hang in space, the Exodus did not occur, the Earth is far more than 6000 years old (off by a factor of 750,000), etc.

The Bible also has internal contradictions: can a person see God's face and live? are all sins forgiven for believers? why can't God win against iron chariots?

The Bible is morally questionable: it supports genocide, slavery, is against the rights of women, and is generally a poor choice for moral guidance.

But hey, as long as you let others believe what they do, go and do you. I find the Bible to be either useless or evil, depending on who interprets it.

 

[YoursTrue]

You don’t need to be there if the evidence is there.

Science disregards the supernatural only because it fails as a testable hypothesis.

If someone died and started to rot and then is alive after, that would be evidence that death isn’t a permanent state. Doctors regularly save people who would have died before.

Whenever this comes up (about testable hypothesis), I think about abiogenesis and the start of life on earth.

There is no law giver. Things that exist have properties. Those properties describe how things interact. That is what a natural law is: a description of how things interact.

No consciousness required.

Again, to ME (not speaking for you, of course) that's like saying that the universe came from nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

Well you still haven’t listed any…

OK, which is the verse that claims Jesus is to be born of a virgin?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whenever this comes up (about testable hypothesis), I think about abiogenesis and the start of life on earth.

Okay, and what about it? Do you think that scientist cannot make testable explanations for that? Why would you think that is beyond their abilities?

Again, to ME (not speaking for you, of course) that's like saying that the universe came from nothing.

It probably did not "come from nothing". A lot of that has to do with how one defines "nothing". If you mean an absolute nothing I do not think that anyone says that. So how are you defining "nothing"?

 

[YoursTrue]

The interpretation of evolution has everything to do with ancient paganism and from people in rebellion against God. IMO
It’s the interpretation of the science that’s the problem, personally I don’t care what science you trust or not. The point I was making is not the ICR but what I wrote.
I should’ve posted the science where they photoshopped pictures and the other changes made over the years to make my point, which was that in the end the narrative of the Bible will be shown to have been correct, this is of course my belief and why would I even have to say that, IMO???

Thanks, that's a good point. It's interesting because I was just thinking about people and clothing. We know certain tribes dress half naked or are entirely naked for the most part. And there are reasons for that based on the history of the tribe. Starting out with the migration of people and their ideas and transmitting their history within.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Based on the information I've read, if a religious leader named Yehoshua (also called Yeshua or Jesus) existed in biblical times, he was most likely just an ordinary man and popular religious teacher whose devoted followers embellished the stories about him, and more embellishment and folklore were later added to these stories to make him appear to be more than he actually was. I believe that it's probable that he was simply a well-liked religious teacher whose loyal followers spread false stories about him to make him appear godlike. I also think that it's likely that a few stories about him were copied and adapted from Greek mythology and other ancient pagan religions, which predate Christianity and the Bible. In my opinion, it's plagiarized pagan myths.

More or less, he sounds like a lot of shamans/spiritual leaders speaking out against Rome. Christians just picked him instead of someone from Europe, Africa or Asia doing the same thing and also getting punished and killed for it.

 

[Polymath257]

Whenever this comes up (about testable hypothesis), I think about abiogenesis and the start of life on earth.

And nobody claims to have all of the details. But, when we started out, living things were seen as composed of different materials than non-living things. Then, we found that the chemistry of life is an elaboration of the chemistry of carbon. Then, people claimed that the amino acids could not form without some miracle. But it was found that this is wrong: they are easily formed naturally. Then it was claimed that each species was separately created. But this was also found to be false.

Again, to ME (not speaking for you, of course) that's like saying that the universe came from nothing.

Why would that be? To not have a consciousness does not mean there is nothing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Okay, and what about it? Do you think that scientist cannot make testable explanations for that? Why would you think that is beyond their abilities?

It probably did not "come from nothing". A lot of that has to do with how one defines "nothing". If you mean an absolute nothing I do not think that anyone says that. So how are you defining "nothing"?

They think the Big Bang means the universe came from literal nothingness. It's rooted in the belief everything must come from god, and if there is no god there is nothing. Thus as the Big Bang has no god it stands to reason in yheir worldview the Big Bang came from nothing.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

More or less, he sounds like a lot of shamans/spiritual leaders speaking out against Rome. Christians just picked him instead of someone from Europe, Africa or Asia doing the same thing and also getting punished and killed for it.

I think this is most likely the truth, rather than believing that Jesus is or was a demigod or an earthly manifestation of the biblical god. The latter is in regard to Trinitarian Christians who believe in the hypostatic union, which is the theological belief that Jesus had a human nature yet remained fully God when he lived as a man. It entails the belief in his humanity and divinity (two natures) in a single hypostasis and is compatible with the Trinity doctrine.

 

[ElishaElijah]

OK, which is the verse that claims Jesus is to be born of a virgin?

Don’t you know, you’ve read the Bible

 

[Polymath257]

Don’t you know, you’ve read the Bible

Yes, I have. And I could look it up again, but the point is that the OT verse that the NT refers to is NOT about a virgin! It is about a young girl that gives birth *at the time of the prophecy*. So it isn't about Jesus at all.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Yes, I have. And I could look it up again, but the point is that the OT verse that the NT refers to is NOT about a virgin! It is about a young girl that gives birth *at the time of the prophecy*. So it isn't about Jesus at all.

Which verse are you talking about and who is the girl and who did she give birth to in the OT?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No you have not. How do I know? Because you don’t know the basics. Because when I tell you some of the basics, you complain it is too much or too complicated.

That means that you at most thought about evolution at a very shallow level.

I do not have the expertise to say one way or the other on this.

It isn’t necessary to explain it all. But knowledge of the basics is required for an informed opinion.

In my perspective, it is more reasonable to believe the theory of evolution as a logical explanation for the origin of mankind than to believe that a god created a man from dirt, breathed air into him and made him alive, and created a woman from this man's rib, or to believe that the rest of humanity is descended from this man and woman and that a talking serpent cunningly deceived the woman, who then deceived the man, into disobeying this god's command to them not to eat forbidden fruit from a magical tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In comparison to these biblical stories, believing that human beings evolved from a primate ancestor doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It seems ridiculous to me now that I used to believe the creation story.

 

[Kenny]

Spain is a real country with a real history. Maine is a real state with a real history. It's not reflected in Stephen King novels.

So you say. I think its just another story like the Iliad and they just happen to use real places

The Bible mentions real places like Babylon and Egypt, but the stories if the Bible, much like a Stephen King novel, do not match or reflect the evidence and records of the real history of Egypt and Babylon.

I disagree.

 

[YoursTrue]

And nobody claims to have all of the details. But, when we started out, living things were seen as composed of different materials than non-living things. Then, we found that the chemistry of life is an elaboration of the chemistry of carbon. Then, people claimed that the amino acids could not form without some miracle. But it was found that this is wrong: they are easily formed naturally. Then it was claimed that each species was separately created. But this was also found to be false.


Why would that be? To not have a consciousness does not mean there is nothing.

No. it does not mean that there is nothing. It means there is no consciousness of whoever is not alive. Someone who is not conscious cannot do anything.

 

[Polymath257]

Which verse are you talking about and who is the girl and who did she give birth to in the OT?

The verse Matthew 1:23 refers to verse Isaiah 7:14. But the latter verse is clearly NOT about Jesus since the young woman (not a virgin) is supposed to give birth and the son is supposed to still be young (before he knows to refuse evil and choose the good) when the two kings threatening Ahaz are gone (the land they occupy will be deserted).

So, the 'prophesy' referred to in Matthew has NOTHING to do with Jesus at all.

Now, if you think this was the wrong verse, which verse do YOU think Mt 1:23 is referring to?