Jesus story isn't original

[ninerbuff]

The verse that christianity uses to prove that jesus was the son of god was ISIAH 7:14
The discrepency lies in the use of the word "almah" to denote virgin. But in Hebrew, almah denotes a "young maiden" or "woman of marriageble age". Almah was later translated by Greek (when the bible was translated to Greek) to "parthenos" which is Greek is defined as virgin. There is a Hebrew word that distinctly defines virginity, and that is the word "bethulah".
IMO, if there was to be no mistake about the virginity of Mary, then bethulah should have been used instead of almah. This would have at the very least described a virgin, as prophesized by the NT, and not assumed that a young maiden is a virgin.

 

[fallingblood]

Don't feel it's a stretch for the naming of Bethlehem as the birth of jesus.

Is that all you want to debate from that post?

Do you not realize that there was a Bethlehem in Judea at that time? That there was a religious significance to that city?

Maybe after you do some actual research, you can debate what I've stated.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Honestly, I think you started an debate, were not very well informed at all, and now are to deep over your head.

:clapVery well said:clap

 

[ninerbuff]

OK, you start out by making obviously nonsensical connections between early Christianity and Mithras. And that was your strongest connection to the sinister and possibly hypocritical celebration of Christmas on the winter solstice.

Why should I ask nonsensical questions to myself, inspired by a person who clearly knows nothing about the history of Christianity more than he can copy and paste from idiotic websites. And on top of this, you flatly refuse to think about anything.

December 25......yeah christmas and winter solstice just happen to be celebrations that have to relation to each other. Just coincidence.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

December 25......yeah christmas and winter solstice just happen to be celebrations that have to relation to each other. Just coincidence.

I didn't say that.

What I am saying is that your "evidence" does not match your claims, and therefore you have not made your case and come to any resemblence of a respectable conclusion.

You're just mindlessly pasting stuff from websites that have even less judgement than you.

 

[ninerbuff]

Honestly, I don't follow you. You flip between beliefs too rapidly.

Also, why does the Bible need to be the spoken word of God. There are plenty of Jews and Christians who do not believe that is so. From what I can gather is that the majority of Jews, all besides the most conservative, believe that the Bible is not the literal word of God. We also see Christianity beginning to follow this path as well.

There are plenty of athiests that don't believe it either.

That it has flaws is accepted by many Christians and Jews. Honestly, I think you started an debate, were not very well informed at all, and now are to deep over your head.

That's your opinion. I doing just fine.

 

[fallingblood]

The verse that christianity uses to prove that jesus was the son of god was ISIAH 7:14
The discrepency lies in the use of the word "almah" to denote virgin. But in Hebrew, almah denotes a "young maiden" or "woman of marriageble age". Almah was later translated by Greek (when the bible was translated to Greek) to "parthenos" which is Greek is defined as virgin. There is a Hebrew word that distinctly defines virginity, and that is the word "bethulah".
IMO, if there was to be no mistake about the virginity of Mary, then bethulah should have been used instead of almah. This would have at the very least described a virgin, as prophesized by the NT, and not assumed that a young maiden is a virgin.

I actually addressed this earlier in this thread. Critical scholars believe this and have been saying this for quite some time now.

However, there are also other verses that are used by Christians to claim that Jesus is the son of God. Such as John 3:16.

 

[fallingblood]

There are plenty of athiests that don't believe it either.

That's your opinion. I doing just fine.

My opinion is based on facts. Yours are based on shoddy research. Huge difference.

 

[fallingblood]

fallingblood, "The four Gospels, when compared together, give a very good historical record for Jesus."

OK, let's see.

How original is the story of Jesus feeding the multitudes?
Here's info from Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark.



That's some historical record of Jesus you got there fallingblood, and that's just one example of how "original" this story is, not to mention how "historical" it is. I can offer many more "historical records" of Jesus where that came from if you like.

So to be historical, it has to be completely original? You have to try better than that. Actually any research would do from you.

 

[dogsgod]

So to be historical, it has to be completely original? You have to try better than that. Actually any research would do from you.

No, I don't have to try better than to point out Matthew and Luke's sources. They borrowed from Mark, Q, and the OT. That comes from research, try it sometime.

 

[fallingblood]

No, I don't have to try better than to point out Matthew and Luke's sources. They borrowed from Mark, Q, and the OT. That comes from research, try it sometime.

Maybe you should take your own advice. If you really did the research, you would know that Matthew and Luke used Mark, Q, and their own separate sources to compile their works. Yes, they searched the OT for prophecies. What you did not point out that Matthew and Luke each had their own sources as well.

Also, what you don't point out is that many history books use other sources for their own work. It's not a bad thing.

 

[ninerbuff]

My opinion is based on facts. Yours are based on shoddy research. Huge difference.

Lol, you can't make up your mind if god is real or not. While there is no evidence to show god doesn't exist, stronger evidence is apparent that god is nothing more that a made up entity by man.
What you state as fact, is subjective because there is no absolute concensus whether god exists or not. So from my point of view and based on my own experiences, though anecdotal, any religion is just a form of control of people.

 

[fallingblood]

Lol, you can't make up your mind if god is real or not. While there is no evidence to show god doesn't exist, stronger evidence is apparent that god is nothing more that a made up entity by man.
What you state as fact, is subjective because there is no absolute concensus whether god exists or not. So from my point of view and based on my own experiences, though anecdotal, any religion is just a form of control of people.

We weren't talking about God. And actually, I believe God exists. More so though, there is no evidence that God doesn't exist. There is no evidence either way, so your point is moot. Believe what you want, that's fine, but you can't prove God doesn't exist.

So really, your whole post here is moot. We weren't talking about God.

 

[Sunstone]

What!!!! The Jesus story isn't original??!! Let's sue God and name the Pope as a co-defendant!

 

[Breathe]

Often overheard in fundamentalist discussions of sexuality...

Eh?

didn't Peter, Paul & Mary do a song about this?...

You're confusing.

 

[dogsgod]

We weren't talking about God. And actually, I believe God exists. More so though, there is no evidence that God doesn't exist. There is no evidence either way, so your point is moot. Believe what you want, that's fine, but you can't prove God doesn't exist.

So really, your whole post here is moot. We weren't talking about God.

So, you believe in the existence of what can't be proven. What else is new?

 

[ninerbuff]

We weren't talking about God. And actually, I believe God exists. More so though, there is no evidence that God doesn't exist. There is no evidence either way, so your point is moot. Believe what you want, that's fine, but you can't prove God doesn't exist.

So really, your whole post here is moot. We weren't talking about God.

Guess you missed the part about where I said that factual info on religion is SUBJECTIVE.

 

[fallingblood]

So, you believe in the existence of what can't be proven. What else is new?

And you still can't debate. What else is new?

 

[fallingblood]

Guess you missed the part about where I said that factual info on religion is SUBJECTIVE.

And I guess you missed the part in which you were wrong. The fact is this, we can know certain things about the history of a religion.

 

[MW0082]

And I guess you missed the part in which you were wrong. The fact is this, we can know certain things about the history of a religion.

And we KNOW certain things about how the story of Jesus is plagiarized, you just choose to ignore them. Yet you beleive in soemthing you can NEVER prove.... lol typical....