Jesus Resurrection

[Jollybear]

One cannot read minds. You demand too much. I answered the question the best that it could be answered.

I demand too much? No, i think you demand too much. The kind of evidence you want for a resurrection is of a kind no one can produce, such as pull jesus out of the sky and throw him over to your house and have him say "tada, here i am".

Im simply asking you, if this census did not happen, why does luke NEED it to happen? It makes no sense to make a trivial NATURAL thing up like this.

So, why? Me demanding a motive is RATIONAL for me to ask you this from my side of this debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The census issue is not the noahs flood issue. 2 different subjects. Carm has quite alot of info on there site dealing with lots of subjects.

I gave you the one on the virgin issue.

How do you know its being dishonest? I also gave you the hebrew lexicon too, thats the best you can get. Is that dishonest too?

No, but you sites CARM as a source. If they cannot be honest on a relatively minor matter how can you expect them to be honest on a more important matter?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I demand too much? No, i think you demand too much. The kind of evidence you want for a resurrection is of a kind no one can produce, such as pull jesus out of the sky and throw him over to your house and have him say "tada, here i am".

Im simply asking you, if this census did not happen, why does luke NEED it to happen? It makes no sense to make a trivial NATURAL thing up like this.

So, why? Me demanding a motive is RATIONAL for me to ask you this from my side of this debate.

No, I simply require evidence not filled with holes. Every source you use is terminally flawed.

 

[Jollybear]

No, but you sites CARM as a source. If they cannot be honest on a relatively minor matter how can you expect them to be honest on a more important matter?

I havent looked at there articles on noahs flood so i dont know. But those articles arent the issue in this thread, the virgin one was.

 

[Jollybear]

No, I simply require evidence not filled with holes. Every source you use is terminally flawed.

You can say that all you want, but not answering questions blows holes in your position and view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I havent looked at there articles on noahs flood so i dont know. But those articles arent the issue in this thread, the virgin one was.

No, we are discussing whether the source that you used was reliable or not. They proved that they were not.

 

[Jollybear]

No, we are discussing whether the source that you used was reliable or not. They proved that they were not.

The virgin article, how was that proven to be dishonest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can say that all you want, but not answering questions blows holes in your position and view.

I answered your questions time after time. Once again, not liking the answer does not mean that they were not answered. Here is a suggestion, you may be trying to ask leading questions. That is an improper technique.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The virgin article, how was that proven to be dishonest?

There is no need to. The source is tainted. Try again with a valid source. Odds are that you can't find one. That should tell you something.

 

[Jollybear]

I answered your questions time after time. Once again, not liking the answer does not mean that they were not answered. Here is a suggestion, you may be trying to ask leading questions. That is an improper technique.

How else can i ask my question to you?

Why would luke make up the census story? Any possible motive hypotheses?

 

[Jollybear]

There is no need to. The source is tainted. Try again with a valid source. Odds are that you can't find one. That should tell you something.

Yea, the other one was the hebrew lexicon. That one was found and i gave it to you already.

Oh and dont forget the scholar who was a jew then converted to christian, the article he wrote on the census.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How else can i ask my question to you?

Why would luke make up the census story? Any possible motive hypotheses?

to serve a"greater truth". That happens quite often with those of religious beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yea, the other one was the hebrew lexicon. That one was found and i gave it to you already.

Oh and dont forget the scholar who was a jew then converted to christian, the article he wrote on the census.

And you ignored the answer. The author of that work used the word bethula when speaking of virgins. Why not for an even more important case?

 

[Apologes]

No, but you sites CARM as a source.

Pretty sure you used jesusneverexisted.com to support your argument.

 

[Jollybear]

to serve a"greater truth". That happens quite often with those of religious beliefs.

Heres the problem with saying this, we dont NEED to have this census in order to still have a virgin birth. We dont need a census in order to have the Son of God do miracles and rise from the dead. A census is trivial and natural. Its not needed for the MAIN purpose luke writes his gospel.

So, again, your begging the question. WHAT IS this "GREATER TRUTH" luke referes to in making up a census taking place? Why does he need to make one? We obviously dont need one for a virgin birth to take place.

Since a census is irrelavent for a virgin birth and irrelavent to lukes main theims, and since theres no good concievable motive for him to make up this census, it thus makes no sense he made it up. Hes telling the truth. Theirs no reason to doubt it.

 

[Jollybear]

And you ignored the answer. The author of that work used the word bethula when speaking of virgins. Why not for an even more important case?

You talking about the hebrew lexicon?

No, the lexicon uses almah.

Isaiah 7:14 - STR - with Study Resources - with Context - Study Desk

The above link is in isaiah. When you click on the word virgin this comes up >

Old Testament Hebrew - StudyLight.org

Its the hebrew word almah. And it can be translated both ways, young lady OR VIRGIN and then it even emphasises that there is no case where it can be proved that it cannot be translated as virgin.

This is the hebrew lexicon. Are they part of the conspiracy too?

I believe conspiracies happen, but they usually come with leaks, in the case of the so called christian conspiracy, theres no leaks. Dang, how did they all pull that one off? Lol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Heres the problem with saying this, we dont NEED to have this census in order to still have a virgin birth. We dont need a census in order to have the Son of God do miracles and rise from the dead. A census is trivial and natural. Its not needed for the MAIN purpose luke writes his gospel.

So, again, your begging the question. WHAT IS this "GREATER TRUTH" luke referes to in making up a census taking place? Why does he need to make one? We obviously dont need one for a virgin birth to take place.

Since a census is irrelavent for a virgin birth and irrelavent to lukes main theims, and since theres no good concievable motive for him to make up this census, it thus makes no sense he made it up. Hes telling the truth. Theirs no reason to doubt it.

Sorry the virgin birth is merely a myth that was based on a poor translation of a non-prophecy. This is an example of you not being able to face up to the failures of Luke.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You talking about the hebrew lexicon?

No, the lexicon uses almah.

Isaiah 7:14 - STR - with Study Resources - with Context - Study Desk

The above link is in isaiah. When you click on the word virgin this comes up >

Old Testament Hebrew - StudyLight.org

Its the hebrew word almah. And it can be translated both ways, young lady OR VIRGIN and then it even emphasises that there is no case where it can be proved that it cannot be translated as virgin.

This is the hebrew lexicon. Are they part of the conspiracy too?

I believe conspiracies happen, but they usually come with leaks, in the case of the so called christian conspiracy, theres no leaks. Dang, how did they all pull that one off? Lol.

Nope, it also uses bethula. You lost this one. Bethula (lol, when capitalized my autocorrect insists on changing that to "Gerbils") is a specification for virgin. It was used by the author. Almah has more than one meaning. Why would the author use a vague term when a specific one that he used elsewhere existed? You are not using that took correctly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pretty sure you used jesusneverexisted.com to support your argument.

It depends upon how serious that I am. And the two are not even in the same ballpark. There may be some disagreement among historians about some of the claims of jesusneverexisted.com. In the world of science there is no conflict about the flood myth of the Adam and Eve myth, both of which are heavily and dishonestly supported by CARM.

 

[Jollybear]

Sorry the virgin birth is merely a myth that was based on a poor translation of a non-prophecy. This is an example of you not being able to face up to the failures of Luke.

If you read isaiah chapter 7, its obviously a prophesy because God tells what he is going to do and what will happen. Now you can say its not a prophesy about Jesus if you want, but to say its not a prophesy PERIOD is a bit rediculoius.