Did Jesus really exist?

[JoeB131]

[

If the 4 gospels agree, then you say they are plagiarized and if there is an apparent difference then you say it is a contradiction.

Uh, no. The fact is, Luke and Matthew lift whole passages out of Mark and then add their own material. It's where Luke and Matt disagree on the material that the problem comes in.

And that isn't plagiarism, that is just what satan does when he is trying to eliminate a person of promise. I don't see anything "Hilari[ous]" with killing babies.

I do when a hack is making shit up. Keep in mind, this is Matthew's Gospel, the one with the Zombies in it.

Don't see any "discrepancy" just both accounts looking at different details.

The decree was by Augustus.

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
(Luke 2:1 KJV)

When Herod the great was still alive, Augustus couldn't tax or do a census in his Kingdom. It's only after Herod Archelous was deposed and Judea was made a Roman province in 6 AD could the Romans order such a thing. This puts a 10 year gap between the death of Herod and the Census of Quirinius.

Josephus says that Herod's death was between a lunar eclipse and passover. The most fitting total eclipse that could be seen from Jerusalem would likely be the one on January 9, 1BC. Therefore Herod's death would be sometime in early 1BC and Jesus would have been born around 1-2 BC. Irenaous states that Jesus was born in the 41st year of Agustus' reign, and since Agustus began his reign in 43 BC, this once again confirms the date of 2 BC.


So to recap. No discrepancies found.

Most Christian Apologists agree that Herod died in 4 BCE.

 

[JoeB131]

I believe he was a real person but that he was just an ordinary person, nothing special about him at all.

I am the caretaker of my families cemetery. I only actually knew about 4 of the people buried there. My father knew many more, and my aunt knew even more than him, but there are some there, who no one knows anymore. The names have faded away from the tombstones, and a few never had a stone, the records were lost long before I took over, thus, we will probably never know who they were, or anything about them. That is sad.

2000 years after His birth, billions of people, still proclaim Jesus as Lord, and worship Him as such, most of those people try to live the life they believe the Man lived. But, if you want to claim, that there was nothing special about Him, you have that right. Just as I have the right to tell you, that if this world last another 100 years, just a few people will remember you, or the contributions you made here, and a 100 years after that, no one will remember you. Yet, Jesus will still be worshipped by billions or trillions of people, and you, like me, and the rest of the folks on here, will just be dust, rotting in a box, or scattered to the wind, until the trumpet blows, that is.

the problem with that kind of thinking is that a Lot of people believe that Robin Hood and King Arthur were "real" people, but the reality was that they were made up. But people believed in them for hundreds of years.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Absolutely not!
TNT was written for the audience that would accept it...the uneducated.
Heck, the "Apostles" were fishermen, hardly your most educated citizens, and tax collectors, hardly your finest citizens.
Peter was "amazed" by everything he sees; in other words, he was a moron.
I can't remember the verse, but somewhere in TNT, one of the Apostles states something akin to "Knowledge is arrogance".
TNT is geared towards the weak minded.

so basically, you made the comment that Christianity is a hold over from Greek mythology, you have not demonstrated anything that supports that comment nor do you have any intent to do so, beyond saying that its intended audience was uneducated......but its not a throw away comment......all I can say is that if knowledge is arrogance, you are certainly a humble man.......

Your mind set is very Aristotelian;

actually, no....

And I see you have ignored my other content.

....I've responded to everything on topic....

 

[PostmodernProph]

because TNT is so filled with holdovers from Greek Mythology.

got any documentation of that absurd claim?.....

Are you kidding?
Demons, withering hands, Satan.
In fact, are you fucking kidding?

yes....I was kidding...l knew you would not be able to document it so when I asked for documentation, it was a joke.....

I'll do it. But, I need a day off so that I can pull my stuff out. It would have more than mythos. Although, I'm not going to war with you. I simply find that aspect fascinating.

do me a favor and come up with something new....I'm tired of repeating why Dionyses did not have a virgin birth.....

I don't have to go to Dionyses if I want to talk about the virgin birth.

St. Jerome translated the bible into Latin. He tells you that he knows that it isn't true but keeps on rolling. He does that here:

32. Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope:4478“Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah!4479What then is the meaning of Almah? A hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more, because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men. Then again, Rebecca, on account of her extreme purity, and because she was a type of the Church which she represented in her own virginity, is described in Genesis as Almah, not Bethulah, as may clearly be proved from the words of Abraham’s servant, spoken by him in Mesopotamia:4480“And he said, O Lord, the God of my master Abraham, if now thou do prosper my way which I go: behold I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that the maiden which cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of this pitcher to drink; and she shall say to me, Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels: let the same be the woman whom the Lord hath appointed for my master’s son.” Where he speaks of the maiden coming forth to draw water, the Hebrew word is Almah, that is, a virgin secluded, and guarded by her parents with extreme care. Or, if this be not so, let them at least show me where the word is applied to married women as well, and I will confess my ignorance. “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” If virginity be not preferred to marriage, why did not the Holy Spirit choose a married woman, or a widow? For at that time Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser, was alive, distinguished for purity, and always free to devote herself to prayers and fasting in the temple of God. If the life, and good works, and fasting without virginity can merit the advent of the Holy Spirit, she might well have been the mother of our Lord. Let us hasten to the rest:4481“The virgin daughter of Zion hath despised thee and laughed thee to scorn.” To her whom he called daughter the prophet also gave the title virgin, for fear that if he spoke only of a daughter, it might be supposed that she was married. This is the virgin daughter whom elsewhere he thus addresses:4482“Sing, O barren, thou that dost not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.” This is she of whom God by the mouth of Jeremiah speaks, saying:4483“Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire.” Concerning her we read of a great miracle in the same prophecy4484—that a woman should compass a man, and that the Father of all things should be contained in a virgin’s womb.

NPNF2-06. Jerome The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

But, that isn't where I was going.

It seems that when I post this, you guys run. Jerome knows that if he tells the truth and corrects the wording then they can't use Isaiah 7:14.

okay....I've read it three times and I still can't figure out what that quote has to do with the topic I've been discussing.........would you care to point out what it has to do with the claim that Christianity is a holdover from Greek mythology?.....

The NT is an argument.........one side of the argument. It is an extension of older arguments.

Like......free will

Start here:
Hellenistic Astrology Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

When I have time later I will add to it. BTW, do you know what language St. Jerome was translating from into Latin?

sorry, I don't debate internet sites.....they really suck at defending themselves.....if you come up with something YOU want to discuss, feel free to post it.......

I'm not asking you to debate an internet site. I'm giving you material that I will expand on. It's easily verifiable. You wanted documentation, no?

I would prefer if you would stay on topic.

St. Jerome was translating Koine Greek to Latin. Latin was already a dead language pretty much every place else. Anywhoo, let me introduce you to the Septuagint.
Septuagint - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

third irrelevant post in a row.....why are you even posting.....the claim was that Christianity is a holdover from Greek mythology......

I gave you a heads up that it would contain more than mythos. I don't think that you grasp just how Greek the NT is or how much has been taken from other cultures. I'm just laying the ground work.
In fact, I already gave you the information on where your free will argument comes from, cosmic sympathy, astrology and prophecy, the incorporation of the star of Bethlehem-The one that never happened. A comet did come through 12 BCE but you got nothing no where and no how recorded (for a star/planet/comet of Bethlehem at the time of the alleged birth) and it isn't from lack of trying from historical astronomy. If you were smart then you recognized the beginnings of asceticism provided in the link to Hellenic Astrology (a philosophical encyclopedia rather than an atheistsrus site that you initially requested). You would also have acknowledged Zeus.

I provided an example of that astrology and prophecy and (your lucky I didn't throw in the numismatics) the anti-Roman sentiment that was found with a savior king. The Egyptians had a book of astrology they used to calculate the Roman losses during Mithradates reign. Further for anti-Roman sentiment among Jewish people one need look no further then Daniel 2 and 7. Earlier I mentioned the Jewish war of 66-70 CE and the dating of the gospels. I have provided St. Jerome's confession that there was no virgin birth and a link to the Septuagint. None of that information was taken from an atheistrus site as previously requested.

It's political as all get out.

So, now I am going to get into Alexandria.

Here is a link to Daniel
Book of Daniel Jewish Virtual Library

if you ever get to the point of addressing the topic at hand, send me a pm......

You know what the point is and you are afraid.

???....actually I know the point we've been discussing and I'm curious why you've wandered so far from it.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Absolutely not!
TNT was written for the audience that would accept it...the uneducated.
Heck, the "Apostles" were fishermen, hardly your most educated citizens, and tax collectors, hardly your finest citizens.
Peter was "amazed" by everything he sees; in other words, he was a moron.
I can't remember the verse, but somewhere in TNT, one of the Apostles states something akin to "Knowledge is arrogance".
TNT is geared towards the weak minded.

so basically, you made the comment that Christianity is a hold over from Greek mythology, you have not demonstrated anything that supports that comment nor do you have any intent to do so, beyond saying that its intended audience was uneducated......but its not a throw away comment......all I can say is that if knowledge is arrogance, you are certainly a humble man.......

Oh. You poor dear. You're ignorant of the fact that your gawds are hand-me-down gawds.

I think I've done a pretty good job so far of showing the very claim something has been handed down is the source of the ignorance......not that you've had much of a hand in the debate......you've added nothing new since April......

 

[Disir]

because TNT is so filled with holdovers from Greek Mythology.

got any documentation of that absurd claim?.....

Are you kidding?
Demons, withering hands, Satan.
In fact, are you fucking kidding?

yes....I was kidding...l knew you would not be able to document it so when I asked for documentation, it was a joke.....

I'll do it. But, I need a day off so that I can pull my stuff out. It would have more than mythos. Although, I'm not going to war with you. I simply find that aspect fascinating.

do me a favor and come up with something new....I'm tired of repeating why Dionyses did not have a virgin birth.....

I don't have to go to Dionyses if I want to talk about the virgin birth.

St. Jerome translated the bible into Latin. He tells you that he knows that it isn't true but keeps on rolling. He does that here:

32. Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope:4478“Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah!4479What then is the meaning of Almah? A hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more, because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men. Then again, Rebecca, on account of her extreme purity, and because she was a type of the Church which she represented in her own virginity, is described in Genesis as Almah, not Bethulah, as may clearly be proved from the words of Abraham’s servant, spoken by him in Mesopotamia:4480“And he said, O Lord, the God of my master Abraham, if now thou do prosper my way which I go: behold I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that the maiden which cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of this pitcher to drink; and she shall say to me, Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels: let the same be the woman whom the Lord hath appointed for my master’s son.” Where he speaks of the maiden coming forth to draw water, the Hebrew word is Almah, that is, a virgin secluded, and guarded by her parents with extreme care. Or, if this be not so, let them at least show me where the word is applied to married women as well, and I will confess my ignorance. “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” If virginity be not preferred to marriage, why did not the Holy Spirit choose a married woman, or a widow? For at that time Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser, was alive, distinguished for purity, and always free to devote herself to prayers and fasting in the temple of God. If the life, and good works, and fasting without virginity can merit the advent of the Holy Spirit, she might well have been the mother of our Lord. Let us hasten to the rest:4481“The virgin daughter of Zion hath despised thee and laughed thee to scorn.” To her whom he called daughter the prophet also gave the title virgin, for fear that if he spoke only of a daughter, it might be supposed that she was married. This is the virgin daughter whom elsewhere he thus addresses:4482“Sing, O barren, thou that dost not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.” This is she of whom God by the mouth of Jeremiah speaks, saying:4483“Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire.” Concerning her we read of a great miracle in the same prophecy4484—that a woman should compass a man, and that the Father of all things should be contained in a virgin’s womb.

NPNF2-06. Jerome The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

But, that isn't where I was going.

It seems that when I post this, you guys run. Jerome knows that if he tells the truth and corrects the wording then they can't use Isaiah 7:14.

okay....I've read it three times and I still can't figure out what that quote has to do with the topic I've been discussing.........would you care to point out what it has to do with the claim that Christianity is a holdover from Greek mythology?.....

The NT is an argument.........one side of the argument. It is an extension of older arguments.

Like......free will

Start here:
Hellenistic Astrology Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

When I have time later I will add to it. BTW, do you know what language St. Jerome was translating from into Latin?

sorry, I don't debate internet sites.....they really suck at defending themselves.....if you come up with something YOU want to discuss, feel free to post it.......

I'm not asking you to debate an internet site. I'm giving you material that I will expand on. It's easily verifiable. You wanted documentation, no?

I would prefer if you would stay on topic.

St. Jerome was translating Koine Greek to Latin. Latin was already a dead language pretty much every place else. Anywhoo, let me introduce you to the Septuagint.
Septuagint - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

third irrelevant post in a row.....why are you even posting.....the claim was that Christianity is a holdover from Greek mythology......

I gave you a heads up that it would contain more than mythos. I don't think that you grasp just how Greek the NT is or how much has been taken from other cultures. I'm just laying the ground work.
In fact, I already gave you the information on where your free will argument comes from, cosmic sympathy, astrology and prophecy, the incorporation of the star of Bethlehem-The one that never happened. A comet did come through 12 BCE but you got nothing no where and no how recorded (for a star/planet/comet of Bethlehem at the time of the alleged birth) and it isn't from lack of trying from historical astronomy. If you were smart then you recognized the beginnings of asceticism provided in the link to Hellenic Astrology (a philosophical encyclopedia rather than an atheistsrus site that you initially requested). You would also have acknowledged Zeus.

I provided an example of that astrology and prophecy and (your lucky I didn't throw in the numismatics) the anti-Roman sentiment that was found with a savior king. The Egyptians had a book of astrology they used to calculate the Roman losses during Mithradates reign. Further for anti-Roman sentiment among Jewish people one need look no further then Daniel 2 and 7. Earlier I mentioned the Jewish war of 66-70 CE and the dating of the gospels. I have provided St. Jerome's confession that there was no virgin birth and a link to the Septuagint. None of that information was taken from an atheistrus site as previously requested.

It's political as all get out.

So, now I am going to get into Alexandria.

Here is a link to Daniel
Book of Daniel Jewish Virtual Library

if you ever get to the point of addressing the topic at hand, send me a pm......

You know what the point is and you are afraid.

???....actually I know the point we've been discussing and I'm curious why you've wandered so far from it.....

I haven't. You are afraid.

 

[Hollie]

Absolutely not!
TNT was written for the audience that would accept it...the uneducated.
Heck, the "Apostles" were fishermen, hardly your most educated citizens, and tax collectors, hardly your finest citizens.
Peter was "amazed" by everything he sees; in other words, he was a moron.
I can't remember the verse, but somewhere in TNT, one of the Apostles states something akin to "Knowledge is arrogance".
TNT is geared towards the weak minded.

so basically, you made the comment that Christianity is a hold over from Greek mythology, you have not demonstrated anything that supports that comment nor do you have any intent to do so, beyond saying that its intended audience was uneducated......but its not a throw away comment......all I can say is that if knowledge is arrogance, you are certainly a humble man.......

Oh. You poor dear. You're ignorant of the fact that your gawds are hand-me-down gawds.

I think I've done a pretty good job so far of showing the very claim something has been handed down is the source of the ignorance......not that you've had much of a hand in the debate......you've added nothing new since April......

I'm perfectly happy to let readers make their own decisions about who has contributed to the thread and who hasn't.

Your pointless one liners have added nothing other than pointless babble.

 

[MaxGrit]

Everything can and should be questioned. And that's the whole point. I question that your messiah even exists and so I resist the notion that I should live my life with him as my example and standard.

Yes. The question is seeking an answer. Do your research.

Almost all scholars agree that Jesus is a real historical figure.

I simply know that not to be true. A great many historians are highly skeptical of his existence.

It's not the quantity of the scholars, but the quality of the scholars.

I agree, I do argue that same point against Christians when they say that there are more of them than there are atheists so I'd be a hypocrite not to agree with that statement. Now the challenge is to honestly determine which scholars are more accomplished,.

Heheh you do realize I don't prejudge works. When looking at a work from an expert in their field, one should not consider the reputation of the expert, but the work itself. Look at the validity of their ideas and how they arrived at their conclusions.

What premise did they use? What evidence do they give? What about counter arguments to their ideas?
Are they misleading others by use of logical fallacies?

Anyways, I have never seen any arguments against I AM that holds up under my scrutiny.

What always ends up happening is that either the arguments uses logical fallacies, or its premise is wrong, or too much presupposition and guessing, terms being redefined, and so on.

What always ends up happening is that I break down the argument and exposes fatal flaw. After that, the come back most of the time is either denial, anger, or the use of the "there is no such thing as objective truth being that all truths are subjective".

Then I groan because they simple won't have the mental capacity to understand the impossibility of, " Being that all truths are subjective, there is no such thing as objective truth, except for the objective truth that there is no such thing as objective truth since all truths are subjective."

I feel sympathy for them because I know it's not their fault that they can't understand. They simply do not have high enough mental capacity to be able to process that level of complexity in thought.

However, it is those people that thinks they are smart and pretend to have knowledge of the subject they are talking about, yet to me they are mediocre at best and love to wallows in their own willful ignorance.

For example, recently I was reading the writings of Karl Marx's and his theories and I was very surprised at how inane and stupid they are. He drones on and on about shit that appear to be smart but in reality is meaningless.

For instance, he talked about helping convert the "fake happiness of people in their current society into the real happiness of Communist society". [Paraphrased].

WTF? That's stupid as shit. What is fake happiness vs. real happiness in society. How can people tell the difference between the two? He never bothered to explain it because he can't explain why happy is not happy.

So stupid the other shits he wrote too.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Everything can and should be questioned. And that's the whole point. I question that your messiah even exists and so I resist the notion that I should live my life with him as my example and standard.

Yes. The question is seeking an answer. Do your research.

Almost all scholars agree that Jesus is a real historical figure.

I simply know that not to be true. A great many historians are highly skeptical of his existence.

It's not the quantity of the scholars, but the quality of the scholars.

I agree, I do argue that same point against Christians when they say that there are more of them than there are atheists so I'd be a hypocrite not to agree with that statement. Now the challenge is to honestly determine which scholars are more accomplished,.

Heheh you do realize I don't prejudge works. When looking at a work from an expert in their field, one should not consider the reputation of the expert, but the work itself. Look at the validity of their ideas and how they arrived at their conclusions.

What premise did they use? What evidence do they give? What about counter arguments to their ideas?
Are they misleading others by use of logical fallacies?

Anyways, I have never seen any arguments against I AM that holds up under my scrutiny.

What always ends up happening is that either the arguments uses logical fallacies, or its premise is wrong, or too much presupposition and guessing, terms being redefined, and so on.

What always ends up happening is that I break down the argument and exposes fatal flaw. After that, the come back most of the time is either denial, anger, or the use of the "there is no such thing as objective truth being that all truths are subjective".

Then I groan because they simple won't have the mental capacity to understand the impossibility of, " Being that all truths are subjective, there is no such thing as objective truth, except for the objective truth that there is no such thing as objective truth since all truths are subjective."

I feel sympathy for them because I know it's not their fault that they can't understand. They simply do not have high enough mental capacity to be able to process that level of complexity in thought.

However, it is those people that thinks they are smart and pretend to have knowledge of the subject they are talking about, yet to me they are mediocre at best and love to wallows in their own willful ignorance.

For example, recently I was reading the writings of Karl Marx's and his theories and I was very surprised at how inane and stupid they are. He drones on and on about shit that appear to be smart but in reality is meaningless.

For instance, he talked about helping convert the "fake happiness of people in their current society into the real happiness of Communist society". [Paraphrased].

WTF? That's stupid as shit. What is fake happiness vs. real happiness in society. How can people tell the difference between the two? He never bothered to explain it because he can't explain why happy is not happy.

So stupid the other shits he wrote too.

I have no problem telling people, I aint that smart. I study the Bible, and things related to the Bible, and other religious texts, I have no desire to study anything else, unless I need to use it in some real world application.

I only ever claimed to be strong as an ox, and almost as smart.

 

[THE LIGHT]

There's no evidence other than Church tradition that Paul was martyred.

But by that logic. Did David Koresh die for a lie? Did Jim Jones die for a lie?

Jim Jones and David Koresh were nut cases that committed suicide. Furthermore, they were to much of cowards to die on their own so they murdered many people with them. Big difference.

 

[Indeependent]

Disir,
How would YOU react if you have been indoctrinated with Heaven or Hell?
It must be terrifying.

TRUTH! Do you seek truth or are you afraid and hide in the tall grass?

God's not the evil bastard TNT paints Him to be.

You didn't mess with the Hebrew Scriptures configuration of god. He'd rip ya' a new one. The Christian configuration of the god was a bit like the OT god who was slipped a dose of ecstasy.

You would have to be a bit more explicit with your examples.
For instance, God did not command Moshe to wipe out any nations outside of the Land of Canaan.
In fact, God commanded Moshe to be especially nice to some nations that were not quite cutting the mustard.
Of course, it was just our luck that we wound up with the least amount of oil...none.
On the other hand, there's TNT...
You don't believe? You get to swim in the Eternal Lake of Fire.
Now, that's a NICE lord.

 

[PostmodernProph]

because TNT is so filled with holdovers from Greek Mythology.

got any documentation of that absurd claim?.....

Are you kidding?
Demons, withering hands, Satan.
In fact, are you fucking kidding?

yes....I was kidding...l knew you would not be able to document it so when I asked for documentation, it was a joke.....

I'll do it. But, I need a day off so that I can pull my stuff out. It would have more than mythos. Although, I'm not going to war with you. I simply find that aspect fascinating.

do me a favor and come up with something new....I'm tired of repeating why Dionyses did not have a virgin birth.....

I don't have to go to Dionyses if I want to talk about the virgin birth.

St. Jerome translated the bible into Latin. He tells you that he knows that it isn't true but keeps on rolling. He does that here:

32. Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope:4478“Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah!4479What then is the meaning of Almah? A hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more, because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men. Then again, Rebecca, on account of her extreme purity, and because she was a type of the Church which she represented in her own virginity, is described in Genesis as Almah, not Bethulah, as may clearly be proved from the words of Abraham’s servant, spoken by him in Mesopotamia:4480“And he said, O Lord, the God of my master Abraham, if now thou do prosper my way which I go: behold I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that the maiden which cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of this pitcher to drink; and she shall say to me, Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels: let the same be the woman whom the Lord hath appointed for my master’s son.” Where he speaks of the maiden coming forth to draw water, the Hebrew word is Almah, that is, a virgin secluded, and guarded by her parents with extreme care. Or, if this be not so, let them at least show me where the word is applied to married women as well, and I will confess my ignorance. “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” If virginity be not preferred to marriage, why did not the Holy Spirit choose a married woman, or a widow? For at that time Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser, was alive, distinguished for purity, and always free to devote herself to prayers and fasting in the temple of God. If the life, and good works, and fasting without virginity can merit the advent of the Holy Spirit, she might well have been the mother of our Lord. Let us hasten to the rest:4481“The virgin daughter of Zion hath despised thee and laughed thee to scorn.” To her whom he called daughter the prophet also gave the title virgin, for fear that if he spoke only of a daughter, it might be supposed that she was married. This is the virgin daughter whom elsewhere he thus addresses:4482“Sing, O barren, thou that dost not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.” This is she of whom God by the mouth of Jeremiah speaks, saying:4483“Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire.” Concerning her we read of a great miracle in the same prophecy4484—that a woman should compass a man, and that the Father of all things should be contained in a virgin’s womb.

NPNF2-06. Jerome The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

But, that isn't where I was going.

It seems that when I post this, you guys run. Jerome knows that if he tells the truth and corrects the wording then they can't use Isaiah 7:14.

okay....I've read it three times and I still can't figure out what that quote has to do with the topic I've been discussing.........would you care to point out what it has to do with the claim that Christianity is a holdover from Greek mythology?.....

The NT is an argument.........one side of the argument. It is an extension of older arguments.

Like......free will

Start here:
Hellenistic Astrology Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

When I have time later I will add to it. BTW, do you know what language St. Jerome was translating from into Latin?

sorry, I don't debate internet sites.....they really suck at defending themselves.....if you come up with something YOU want to discuss, feel free to post it.......

I'm not asking you to debate an internet site. I'm giving you material that I will expand on. It's easily verifiable. You wanted documentation, no?

I would prefer if you would stay on topic.

St. Jerome was translating Koine Greek to Latin. Latin was already a dead language pretty much every place else. Anywhoo, let me introduce you to the Septuagint.
Septuagint - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

third irrelevant post in a row.....why are you even posting.....the claim was that Christianity is a holdover from Greek mythology......

I gave you a heads up that it would contain more than mythos. I don't think that you grasp just how Greek the NT is or how much has been taken from other cultures. I'm just laying the ground work.
In fact, I already gave you the information on where your free will argument comes from, cosmic sympathy, astrology and prophecy, the incorporation of the star of Bethlehem-The one that never happened. A comet did come through 12 BCE but you got nothing no where and no how recorded (for a star/planet/comet of Bethlehem at the time of the alleged birth) and it isn't from lack of trying from historical astronomy. If you were smart then you recognized the beginnings of asceticism provided in the link to Hellenic Astrology (a philosophical encyclopedia rather than an atheistsrus site that you initially requested). You would also have acknowledged Zeus.

I provided an example of that astrology and prophecy and (your lucky I didn't throw in the numismatics) the anti-Roman sentiment that was found with a savior king. The Egyptians had a book of astrology they used to calculate the Roman losses during Mithradates reign. Further for anti-Roman sentiment among Jewish people one need look no further then Daniel 2 and 7. Earlier I mentioned the Jewish war of 66-70 CE and the dating of the gospels. I have provided St. Jerome's confession that there was no virgin birth and a link to the Septuagint. None of that information was taken from an atheistrus site as previously requested.

It's political as all get out.

So, now I am going to get into Alexandria.

Here is a link to Daniel
Book of Daniel Jewish Virtual Library

if you ever get to the point of addressing the topic at hand, send me a pm......

You know what the point is and you are afraid.

???....actually I know the point we've been discussing and I'm curious why you've wandered so far from it.....

I haven't. You are afraid.

????....of what?.....wasting my time?.....

 

[Votto]

[

So Paul gave up his life for a lie, eh?

There's no evidence other than Church tradition that Paul was martyred.

But by that logic. Did David Koresh die for a lie? Did Jim Jones die for a lie?

The Death of Apostle Paul Apostle Paul


The Bible does not cover the death of Paul. But experts generally agree that he most likely met the fate of other Christians under Nero in Rome. Even if this were not the case, he was willing to put his life on the line and be thrown to the lions along side he Christian brothers, which is certainly a historical truth.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Everything can and should be questioned. And that's the whole point. I question that your messiah even exists and so I resist the notion that I should live my life with him as my example and standard.

Yes. The question is seeking an answer. Do your research.

Almost all scholars agree that Jesus is a real historical figure.

I simply know that not to be true. A great many historians are highly skeptical of his existence.

It's not the quantity of the scholars, but the quality of the scholars.

I agree, I do argue that same point against Christians when they say that there are more of them than there are atheists so I'd be a hypocrite not to agree with that statement. Now the challenge is to honestly determine which scholars are more accomplished,.

Heheh you do realize I don't prejudge works. When looking at a work from an expert in their field, one should not consider the reputation of the expert, but the work itself. Look at the validity of their ideas and how they arrived at their conclusions.

What premise did they use? What evidence do they give? What about counter arguments to their ideas?
Are they misleading others by use of logical fallacies?

Anyways, I have never seen any arguments against I AM that holds up under my scrutiny.

What always ends up happening is that either the arguments uses logical fallacies, or its premise is wrong, or too much presupposition and guessing, terms being redefined, and so on.

What always ends up happening is that I break down the argument and exposes fatal flaw. After that, the come back most of the time is either denial, anger, or the use of the "there is no such thing as objective truth being that all truths are subjective".

Then I groan because they simple won't have the mental capacity to understand the impossibility of, " Being that all truths are subjective, there is no such thing as objective truth, except for the objective truth that there is no such thing as objective truth since all truths are subjective."

I feel sympathy for them because I know it's not their fault that they can't understand. They simply do not have high enough mental capacity to be able to process that level of complexity in thought.

However, it is those people that thinks they are smart and pretend to have knowledge of the subject they are talking about, yet to me they are mediocre at best and love to wallows in their own willful ignorance.

For example, recently I was reading the writings of Karl Marx's and his theories and I was very surprised at how inane and stupid they are. He drones on and on about shit that appear to be smart but in reality is meaningless.

For instance, he talked about helping convert the "fake happiness of people in their current society into the real happiness of Communist society". [Paraphrased].

WTF? That's stupid as shit. What is fake happiness vs. real happiness in society. How can people tell the difference between the two? He never bothered to explain it because he can't explain why happy is not happy.

So stupid the other shits he wrote too.

I have no problem telling people, I aint that smart. I study the Bible, and things related to the Bible, and other religious texts, I have no desire to study anything else, unless I need to use it in some real world application.

I only ever claimed to be strong as an ox, and almost as smart.

A perfect example of how the study of religious dogma to strengthen your faith can come at the loss of studying academics to strengthen your intelligence.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Disir,
How would YOU react if you have been indoctrinated with Heaven or Hell?
It must be terrifying.

TRUTH! Do you seek truth or are you afraid and hide in the tall grass?

God's not the evil bastard TNT paints Him to be.

You didn't mess with the Hebrew Scriptures configuration of god. He'd rip ya' a new one. The Christian configuration of the god was a bit like the OT god who was slipped a dose of ecstasy.

You would have to be a bit more explicit with your examples.
For instance, God did not command Moshe to wipe out any nations outside of the Land of Canaan.
In fact, God commanded Moshe to be especially nice to some nations that were not quite cutting the mustard.
Of course, it was just our luck that we wound up with the least amount of oil...none.
On the other hand, there's TNT...
You don't believe? You get to swim in the Eternal Lake of Fire.
Now, that's a NICE lord.

Deuteronomy 32:…21They have made Me jealous with what is not God; They have provoked Me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation, 22For a fire is kindled in My anger, And burns to the lowest part of Sheol, And consumes the earth with its yield, And sets on fire the foundations of the mountains. 23'I will heap misfortunes on them; I will use My arrows on them.…
2 Samuel 22: 6The cords of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me
The KJV reads like this: The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me
How about a Psalm by David
Psalm 9:17The wicked will return to Sheol, Even all the nations who forget God.
Proverbs, Isaiah, Job, Ezekiel, and many of the minor prophets in the OT, are loaded with references to hell.

And it is very interesting that King David, recognized hell, yet you fail to point out that it first began being talked about in the Hebrew Scriptures, as you refer to them.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Everything can and should be questioned. And that's the whole point. I question that your messiah even exists and so I resist the notion that I should live my life with him as my example and standard.

Yes. The question is seeking an answer. Do your research.

Almost all scholars agree that Jesus is a real historical figure.

I simply know that not to be true. A great many historians are highly skeptical of his existence.

It's not the quantity of the scholars, but the quality of the scholars.

I agree, I do argue that same point against Christians when they say that there are more of them than there are atheists so I'd be a hypocrite not to agree with that statement. Now the challenge is to honestly determine which scholars are more accomplished,.

Heheh you do realize I don't prejudge works. When looking at a work from an expert in their field, one should not consider the reputation of the expert, but the work itself. Look at the validity of their ideas and how they arrived at their conclusions.

What premise did they use? What evidence do they give? What about counter arguments to their ideas?
Are they misleading others by use of logical fallacies?

Anyways, I have never seen any arguments against I AM that holds up under my scrutiny.

What always ends up happening is that either the arguments uses logical fallacies, or its premise is wrong, or too much presupposition and guessing, terms being redefined, and so on.

What always ends up happening is that I break down the argument and exposes fatal flaw. After that, the come back most of the time is either denial, anger, or the use of the "there is no such thing as objective truth being that all truths are subjective".

Then I groan because they simple won't have the mental capacity to understand the impossibility of, " Being that all truths are subjective, there is no such thing as objective truth, except for the objective truth that there is no such thing as objective truth since all truths are subjective."

I feel sympathy for them because I know it's not their fault that they can't understand. They simply do not have high enough mental capacity to be able to process that level of complexity in thought.

However, it is those people that thinks they are smart and pretend to have knowledge of the subject they are talking about, yet to me they are mediocre at best and love to wallows in their own willful ignorance.

For example, recently I was reading the writings of Karl Marx's and his theories and I was very surprised at how inane and stupid they are. He drones on and on about shit that appear to be smart but in reality is meaningless.

For instance, he talked about helping convert the "fake happiness of people in their current society into the real happiness of Communist society". [Paraphrased].

WTF? That's stupid as shit. What is fake happiness vs. real happiness in society. How can people tell the difference between the two? He never bothered to explain it because he can't explain why happy is not happy.

So stupid the other shits he wrote too.

I have no problem telling people, I aint that smart. I study the Bible, and things related to the Bible, and other religious texts, I have no desire to study anything else, unless I need to use it in some real world application.

I only ever claimed to be strong as an ox, and almost as smart.

A perfect example of how the study of religious dogma to strengthen your faith can come at the loss of studying academics to strengthen your intelligence.

If being smart, means being as conceited and pompous as you, I would just as soon, remain stupid, so I can at least go out in the rain, and not drown.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Deuteronomy 32:…21They have made Me jealous with what is not God; They have provoked Me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation, 22For a fire is kindled in My anger, And burns to the lowest part of Sheol, And consumes the earth with its yield, And sets on fire the foundations of the mountains. 23'I will heap misfortunes on them; I will use My arrows on them.…
2 Samuel 22: 6The cords of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me
The KJV reads like this: The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me
How about a Psalm by David
Psalm 9:17The wicked will return to Sheol, Even all the nations who forget God.
Proverbs, Isaiah, Job, Ezekiel, and many of the minor prophets in the OT, are loaded with references to hell.

And it is very interesting that King David, recognized hell, yet you fail to point out that it first began being talked about in the Hebrew Scriptures, as you refer to them.

Frankly, god seems to be insufferably vain. Is he related to Trump? Maybe Warren Beatty?

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Everything can and should be questioned. And that's the whole point. I question that your messiah even exists and so I resist the notion that I should live my life with him as my example and standard.

Yes. The question is seeking an answer. Do your research.

Almost all scholars agree that Jesus is a real historical figure.

I simply know that not to be true. A great many historians are highly skeptical of his existence.

It's not the quantity of the scholars, but the quality of the scholars.

I agree, I do argue that same point against Christians when they say that there are more of them than there are atheists so I'd be a hypocrite not to agree with that statement. Now the challenge is to honestly determine which scholars are more accomplished,.

Heheh you do realize I don't prejudge works. When looking at a work from an expert in their field, one should not consider the reputation of the expert, but the work itself. Look at the validity of their ideas and how they arrived at their conclusions.

What premise did they use? What evidence do they give? What about counter arguments to their ideas?
Are they misleading others by use of logical fallacies?

Anyways, I have never seen any arguments against I AM that holds up under my scrutiny.

What always ends up happening is that either the arguments uses logical fallacies, or its premise is wrong, or too much presupposition and guessing, terms being redefined, and so on.

What always ends up happening is that I break down the argument and exposes fatal flaw. After that, the come back most of the time is either denial, anger, or the use of the "there is no such thing as objective truth being that all truths are subjective".

Then I groan because they simple won't have the mental capacity to understand the impossibility of, " Being that all truths are subjective, there is no such thing as objective truth, except for the objective truth that there is no such thing as objective truth since all truths are subjective."

I feel sympathy for them because I know it's not their fault that they can't understand. They simply do not have high enough mental capacity to be able to process that level of complexity in thought.

However, it is those people that thinks they are smart and pretend to have knowledge of the subject they are talking about, yet to me they are mediocre at best and love to wallows in their own willful ignorance.

For example, recently I was reading the writings of Karl Marx's and his theories and I was very surprised at how inane and stupid they are. He drones on and on about shit that appear to be smart but in reality is meaningless.

For instance, he talked about helping convert the "fake happiness of people in their current society into the real happiness of Communist society". [Paraphrased].

WTF? That's stupid as shit. What is fake happiness vs. real happiness in society. How can people tell the difference between the two? He never bothered to explain it because he can't explain why happy is not happy.

So stupid the other shits he wrote too.

I have no problem telling people, I aint that smart. I study the Bible, and things related to the Bible, and other religious texts, I have no desire to study anything else, unless I need to use it in some real world application.

I only ever claimed to be strong as an ox, and almost as smart.

A perfect example of how the study of religious dogma to strengthen your faith can come at the loss of studying academics to strengthen your intelligence.

If being smart, means being as conceited and pompous as you, I would just as soon, remain stupid, so I can at least go out in the rain, and not drown.

What does that even mean?

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Everything can and should be questioned. And that's the whole point. I question that your messiah even exists and so I resist the notion that I should live my life with him as my example and standard.

Yes. The question is seeking an answer. Do your research.

Almost all scholars agree that Jesus is a real historical figure.

I simply know that not to be true. A great many historians are highly skeptical of his existence.

It's not the quantity of the scholars, but the quality of the scholars.

I agree, I do argue that same point against Christians when they say that there are more of them than there are atheists so I'd be a hypocrite not to agree with that statement. Now the challenge is to honestly determine which scholars are more accomplished,.

Heheh you do realize I don't prejudge works. When looking at a work from an expert in their field, one should not consider the reputation of the expert, but the work itself. Look at the validity of their ideas and how they arrived at their conclusions.

What premise did they use? What evidence do they give? What about counter arguments to their ideas?
Are they misleading others by use of logical fallacies?

Anyways, I have never seen any arguments against I AM that holds up under my scrutiny.

What always ends up happening is that either the arguments uses logical fallacies, or its premise is wrong, or too much presupposition and guessing, terms being redefined, and so on.

What always ends up happening is that I break down the argument and exposes fatal flaw. After that, the come back most of the time is either denial, anger, or the use of the "there is no such thing as objective truth being that all truths are subjective".

Then I groan because they simple won't have the mental capacity to understand the impossibility of, " Being that all truths are subjective, there is no such thing as objective truth, except for the objective truth that there is no such thing as objective truth since all truths are subjective."

I feel sympathy for them because I know it's not their fault that they can't understand. They simply do not have high enough mental capacity to be able to process that level of complexity in thought.

However, it is those people that thinks they are smart and pretend to have knowledge of the subject they are talking about, yet to me they are mediocre at best and love to wallows in their own willful ignorance.

For example, recently I was reading the writings of Karl Marx's and his theories and I was very surprised at how inane and stupid they are. He drones on and on about shit that appear to be smart but in reality is meaningless.

For instance, he talked about helping convert the "fake happiness of people in their current society into the real happiness of Communist society". [Paraphrased].

WTF? That's stupid as shit. What is fake happiness vs. real happiness in society. How can people tell the difference between the two? He never bothered to explain it because he can't explain why happy is not happy.

So stupid the other shits he wrote too.

I have no problem telling people, I aint that smart. I study the Bible, and things related to the Bible, and other religious texts, I have no desire to study anything else, unless I need to use it in some real world application.

I only ever claimed to be strong as an ox, and almost as smart.

A perfect example of how the study of religious dogma to strengthen your faith can come at the loss of studying academics to strengthen your intelligence.

If being smart, means being as conceited and pompous as you, I would just as soon, remain stupid, so I can at least go out in the rain, and not drown.

What does that even mean?

It means, your nose is so high up in the air, that if you get caught in a sudden downpour, then you will drown.

In other words, you come off as a snob, and you think you are better than everyone else.

 

[MaxGrit]

It means, your nose is so high up in the air, that if you get caught in a sudden downpour, then you will drown.

In other words, you come off as a snob, and you think you are better than everyone else.

Thank you. I didn't know that either.