Wild biblical stories that demand answers - Whoppers, what say ye? (disciple, gospels)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Certainly Edgar. I have given them to you before in your other life.
No Genesis creation.
No need to dwell on the fact that the Earth is more than 6000 years old becaus we know that humanity is much more than 6000 years old (old cave paintings and suchlike), and we evolved with (other) apes, being closely related to chimpanzees (hominid fossil record, DNA, endogenous retroviruses.
No Noachian Flood.
The survival of Egypt's "Old Kingdom", and the total lack of all the massive geological evidence that a recent worldwide inundation would inevitably leave behind (massive run-off channels, massive water erosion, total disruption of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet layers, and so forth).
No Tower of Babel (no change in written records after the "confusion of languages").
Pretty self-explanatory, this. No sign of any pre-Babel "common language" in written records, no sign of any post-Babel "confusion of languages" towards the end of the second millennium BCE (the time of Babel).
No Exodus.
No trace of the movement of several million people through the Sinai desert, no trace of their supposed encampment at Kadesh Barnea for many years. Where are the latrines, the corpses of those who must have died during that time, and so forth?
No Conquest of Caanan.
The Hebrews are Caananites. Their language evolved from Caananite (after the supposed Exodus), and their religion evolved from Caananite polytheism. We know this from Caananite records (notably the Ugaritic texts).
No "Golden Age" of Solomon.
This "great empire" was never mentioned in the records of other surrounding civilizations, who barely noticed the existence of Israel and Judah.
Failure of Ezekiel's "Tyre Prophecy".
Ezekiel falsely predicted that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon would take and permanently destroy Tyre. But Tyre survived Nebby's 13-year siege. Apologists have sought to cut this prophecy into 2 parts and have Alexander fulfil the second part centuries later (as he DID take Tyre), but this merely creates two failures where there was previously one: Nebby failed to take Tyre as prophesied, Alex failed to permanently destroy Tyre as prophesied.
Failure of Ezekiel's "Egypt Prophecy".
After the failure of the Tyre prophecy, Ezekiel promised Egypt to Nebby as compensation. Nebby was to ransack Egypt so thoroughly that it would be uninhabited for 40 years. Historical records show that this did not happen.
Failure of the "Babylon Prophecy" (Isaiah and Jeremiah).
Both of these prophesied that the Medes would take and permanently destroy Babylon. But the Medes were conquered by the Persians, who then went on to peacefully take (and not destroy) Babylon.
Numerous historical inaccuracies in Daniel.
While Daniel was supposedly written in the 6th century BC, it was actually written four centuries later and gets many details wrong.
Herod/Quirinius issue (Luke's Jesus born a decade after Matthew's Jesus).
Matthew's Jesus was born in Herod's time: Luke's Jesus was born at least a decade later, when Quirinius was governor of the region (as confirmed by various historical sources).
No "Massacre of the Innocents".
We have accounts from Herod's enemies, describing his various "crimes". The Massacre is not among them. It was invented by Matthew to draw a parallel between Jesus and Moses (who also supposedly survived an infant massacre, by Pharaoh).
No "zombie invasion of Jerusalem" or "supernatural darkness" (easily-noticed large-scale miracles).
Again, pretty self-explanatory. The dead supposedly rose from their graves and wandered about in Jerusalem, and there was supposedly a supernatural darkness for several hours: numerous historians in the vicinity failed to notice these, as did all the gospel authors except one: obviously invented.
Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai.
Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 BCE, which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. In other words, there was no Canaanite city there for Joshua to conquer. The walls of Jericho did not come tumbling down at the sound of Joshua's trumpets. They came tumbling down at about the same time as Ai. c2300BCE..a thousand years before Joshua.
Will that do to go on with?
That'll do fine. I'd add the synoptics saying that Jesus called the disciples in Galilee, while John says they joined him at the Jordan. John says that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but the synoptics seem to know nothing of this, while John passes over the transfiguration without a mention. Luke adds on the miraculous draft of fishes to the calling of the disciples and the penitent thief to the Crucifixion, none of which is mentioned by the others, though John does have a miraculous draft of fishes - but after the resurrection! But then his Temple cleansing is missing, but an identical event occurs even before the baptism. And, after the women discover the empty tomb, the resurrection accounts disagree on practically everything.
And I haven't even mentioned the parables and John's sermons. Or How the 2 sepulchres can't possibly be Arimathea's tomb, or Matthew's sinking Simon or the Shekel -eating fish.
That'll do fine. I'd add the synoptics saying that Jesus called the disciples in Galilee, while John says they joined him at the Jordan. John says that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but the synoptics seem to know nothing of this, while John passes over the transfiguration without a mention. Luke adds on the miraculous draft of fishes to the calling of the disciples and the penitent thief to the Crucifixion, none of which is mentioned by the others, though John does have a miraculous draft of fishes - but after the resurrection! But then his Temple cleansing is missing, but an identical event occurs even before the baptism. And, after the women discover the empty tomb, the resurrection accounts disagree on practically everything.
And I haven't even mentioned the parables and John's sermons. Or How the 2 sepulchres can't possibly be Arimathea's tomb, or Matthew's sinking Simon or the Shekel -eating fish.
You forget to mention that wild story in the book of Matthew where zombies rose up out of their graves upon Jesus' death OR resurrection (the writer seemed confused) and walked into Jerusalem and were seen "by MANY." Nary a word in the other Gospels or any other ancient literature about this alleged unprecedented event.
You forget to mention that wild story in the book of Matthew where zombies rose up out of their graves upon Jesus' death OR resurrection (the writer seemed confused) and walked into Jerusalem and were seen "by MANY." Nary a word in the other Gospels or any other ancient literature about this alleged unprecedented event.
Yes, that one, and many many others. Luke's announcement in Nazareth with attempted assassination which actually appears in Matthew and Mark, but later on in the ministry. And, while the omission off the announcement of Messiahship in the synagogue could be shrugged off (though it is hard to see how Matthew wouldn't have grabbed that eagerly if he had known of it) leaving out the attempted stoning is as hard to swallow as Luke and indeed Josephus leaving out the massacre of innocents. In fact, the Nativity mess is the original touchstone case of "Really serious discrepancy indicates invention".
John's spear in the side comes into this category, and John's omission of the "Trial" in the Sanhedrin (though there is an interrogation in the Chief Priest's house) together with the absurdity of the 'Trial' itself (never mind the individual variants) puts it into the 'untrue' category, with the involvement of Herod Antipas (Luke) the tomb guard (Matthew) and that absurd descending angel. And rather Like Pippin's clumsy mistake in Moria , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfws7_Ezsiw
drags after it the Syrio -phoenecian woman, the accounts of the death of Judas, the appearance(s) of Jesus on the Sunday and where Thomas was, the walking on water...Oh, yes, Luke doesn't have it, and that is a problem, though one that is overlooked almost universally, and the release of Barabbas, which is NOT overlooked, but, which I humbly propose, I now think I understand. And that there was a release custom of any kind or Barabbas was Jesus' son is not the right answer.
And I have to finish with that small but utterly telling undeniable alteration by Luke of the Angel's message. This is proof of fabrication and alteration. Just as Matthew's Virgin is proof that he was Greek -speaker and probably Greek himself (which I'm sure Bible critics must have noted, though I only saw the suggestion once, some time ago). And that horrible Matthian addition of the crowd of Jews asking for, eagerly, what the Christians of the time and centuries later were itching to dish out to them.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-11-2016 at 06:24 AM..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,952,440 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Yes, that one, and many many others. Luke's announcement in Nazareth with attempted assassination which actually appears in Matthew and Mark, but later on in the ministry. And, while the omission off the announcement of Messiahship in the synagogue could be shrugged off (though it is hard to see how Matthew wouldn't have grabbed that eagerly if he had known of it) leaving out the attempted stoning is as hard to swallow as Luke and indeed Josephus leaving out the massacre of innocents. In fact, the Nativity mess is the original touchstone case of "Really serious discrepancy indicates invention".
John's spear in the side comes into this category, and John's omission of the "Trial" in the Sanhedrin (though there is an interrogation in the Chief Priest's house) together with the absurdity of the 'Trial' itself (never mind the individual variants) puts it into the 'untrue' category, with the involvement of Herod Antipas (Luke) the tomb guard (Matthew) and that absurd descending angel. And rather Like Pippin's clumsy mistake in Moria ,
drags after it the Syrio -phoenecian woman, the accounts of the death of Judas, the appearance(s) of Jesus on the Sunday and where Thomas was, the walking on water...Oh, yes, Luke doesn't have it, and that is a problem, though one that is overlooked almost universally, and the release of Barabbas, which is NOT overlooked, but, which I humbly propose, I now think I understand. And that there was a release custom of any kind or Barabbas was Jesus' son is not the right answer.
And I have to finish with that small but utterly telling undeniable alteration by Luke of the Angel's message. This is proof of fabrication and alteration. Just as Matthew's Virgin is proof that he was Greek -speaker and probably Greek himself (which I'm sure Bible critics must have noted, though I only saw the suggestion once, some time ago). And that horrible Matthian addition of the crowd of Jews asking for, eagerly, what the Christians of the time and centuries later were itching to dish out to them.
Well put together post. I'll wait with abated breath to see if your points are discussed in a cogent manner by a fundevangelist.
...and you can't be sure of the contrary. You can only assume that it was mean't for only one person.. Of course, you want it to apply only to the rich man because you don't want it to apply to you. It is ludicrous to assume that whenever you man-god was 'teaching' something, it was only meant for the particular person that he was addressing at the time.
Whether it is 'illogical' or not is irrelevant. It is what you were told to do by your man god and you are not doing it. There are many other verses where your man god told you to get rid of your money and you have ignored them.
"You cannot serve God and Money.†(Matthew 6:24)
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.†(Matthew 6:19) “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.â€
It's not saying that you will solve poverty. It's saying that...if you want to be 'perfect' (Christ-like) you should sell your possessions, give the money to someone that needs it and follow him (Jesus). You are quick enough to heed your Bible on what (you think) it says about gays. Why don't you heed what it says about giving your money away?
Why do you need to provide for your family or have someone take care of you? Don't you trust your Bible when it says that God will provide for your every need?
Matt 31
‘Do not worry, then, saying, “What shall we eat?†or “What shall we drink?†or “What shall we wear?â€
32
For after all these things the nations seek, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.
33
But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
34
Do not worry, then, about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry for itself. Sufficient for the day
its own trouble.’
...and to do those things, do you need a big house, cars, TVs and electrical equipment, computers. holidays, IPads, IPhones, laptops and other luxury goods? No you don't but I bet you have them all. Why don't you keep just enough money to survive and give the rest away?
Sorry to dissappoint you, but I don't have a big house, I don't have a fancy car. In fact my car is 12 years old. My TV's and computers are not the latest version. I don't have a IPad, laptop or any luxury goods. My iphone is an old flip phone that is mostly good for only a telephone.
I give to my church and other charities I feel are worthy. I have told you why I don't give all my money away. If you reject that, I guess I will just be broken hearted that some skeptic does not accept my views.
Yes, this Omega's entire approach is to assume that a) God wrote the Bible, b) everything in it is teaching us something from God and c) Christianity is needed to understand the apparently poorly-written "Old" Testment. Unfortunately, these are 3 very large assumptions grind against what most of us know of the very human authorship of the Bible and thus colors and harms all rhetoric that comes afterwards.
That are not assumptions unless you can show they are. Can you do that?
Quote:
Eusebius is a bit more capable in at least understanding the objections put forth to his own arguments, even if he vehemently disagrees with them.
You still don't believe him so what's your point? What makes you think I don't understand the objections to my arguments. I do understand them; that is why I reject them. Thay are not logical.
Quote:
There is also a hint in Omega's reasoning that there exists no such thing as human experts on the Bible,
Not only are you dead wrong, I doubt if you can post that I have ever hinted such a thing. Every Christiasns know there are experts in the Bible
Quote:
and adopts Martin Luther's view that all believers are able to interpret the Scriptures. Of course, Luther saw how dangerous this practice rather quickly and vehemently argued against uninformed interpretations.
All born again Christians have the Holy Spirit to guide them. While they, including myself, might not understand some things, God has written the important things in simple language that only the skeptics cannot understand.
Certainly Edgar. I have given them to you before in your other life.
No Genesis creation.
No need to dwell on the fact that the Earth is more than 6000 years old becaus we know that humanity is much more than 6000 years old (old cave paintings and suchlike), and we evolved with (other) apes, being closely related to chimpanzees (hominid fossil record, DNA, endogenous retroviruses.
No Noachian Flood.
The survival of Egypt's "Old Kingdom", and the total lack of all the massive geological evidence that a recent worldwide inundation would inevitably leave behind (massive run-off channels, massive water erosion, total disruption of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet layers, and so forth).
No Tower of Babel (no change in written records after the "confusion of languages").
Pretty self-explanatory, this. No sign of any pre-Babel "common language" in written records, no sign of any post-Babel "confusion of languages" towards the end of the second millennium BCE (the time of Babel).
No Exodus.
No trace of the movement of several million people through the Sinai desert, no trace of their supposed encampment at Kadesh Barnea for many years. Where are the latrines, the corpses of those who must have died during that time, and so forth?
No Conquest of Caanan.
The Hebrews are Caananites. Their language evolved from Caananite (after the supposed Exodus), and their religion evolved from Caananite polytheism. We know this from Caananite records (notably the Ugaritic texts).
No "Golden Age" of Solomon.
This "great empire" was never mentioned in the records of other surrounding civilizations, who barely noticed the existence of Israel and Judah.
Failure of Ezekiel's "Tyre Prophecy".
Ezekiel falsely predicted that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon would take and permanently destroy Tyre. But Tyre survived Nebby's 13-year siege. Apologists have sought to cut this prophecy into 2 parts and have Alexander fulfil the second part centuries later (as he DID take Tyre), but this merely creates two failures where there was previously one: Nebby failed to take Tyre as prophesied, Alex failed to permanently destroy Tyre as prophesied.
Failure of Ezekiel's "Egypt Prophecy".
After the failure of the Tyre prophecy, Ezekiel promised Egypt to Nebby as compensation. Nebby was to ransack Egypt so thoroughly that it would be uninhabited for 40 years. Historical records show that this did not happen.
Failure of the "Babylon Prophecy" (Isaiah and Jeremiah).
Both of these prophesied that the Medes would take and permanently destroy Babylon. But the Medes were conquered by the Persians, who then went on to peacefully take (and not destroy) Babylon.
Numerous historical inaccuracies in Daniel.
While Daniel was supposedly written in the 6th century BC, it was actually written four centuries later and gets many details wrong.
Herod/Quirinius issue (Luke's Jesus born a decade after Matthew's Jesus).
Matthew's Jesus was born in Herod's time: Luke's Jesus was born at least a decade later, when Quirinius was governor of the region (as confirmed by various historical sources).
No "Massacre of the Innocents".
We have accounts from Herod's enemies, describing his various "crimes". The Massacre is not among them. It was invented by Matthew to draw a parallel between Jesus and Moses (who also supposedly survived an infant massacre, by Pharaoh).
No "zombie invasion of Jerusalem" or "supernatural darkness" (easily-noticed large-scale miracles).
Again, pretty self-explanatory. The dead supposedly rose from their graves and wandered about in Jerusalem, and there was supposedly a supernatural darkness for several hours: numerous historians in the vicinity failed to notice these, as did all the gospel authors except one: obviously invented.
Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai.
Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 BCE, which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. In other words, there was no Canaanite city there for Joshua to conquer. The walls of Jericho did not come tumbling down at the sound of Joshua's trumpets. They came tumbling down at about the same time as Ai. c2300BCE..a thousand years before Joshua.
Will that do to go on with?
No opinions count for anything. When you offer some evidence they are wrong, get back to me. If it involves evolution make sure it can be proven. Scientifically that is.
Well put together post. I'll wait with abated breath to see if your points are discussed in a cogent manner by a fundevangelist.
Thank you kindly. I myself have on former occasions waited with bated breath for a cogent refutation by a Christian apologist. Lucky they got to me in time with Oxygen or I wouldn't be boring your arses awf now.
Thank you kindly. I myself have on former occasions waited with bated breath for a cogent refutation by a Christian apologist. Lucky they got to me in time with Oxygen or I wouldn't be boring your arses awf now.
You will never consider any christian a acceptable apologist becaue you aer inncapable of understanding spiritual concepts.
I know you wont consider me on your intellectual level so refuting what I say should be easy for one of your intellect, but tell me what you disagree with the most about Christianity and the Bible and I will try to explain why you are wrong.
its not that omega. He is a fundy, so changing a personal emotional based opinion based on what we have learned is not an option. he actually sounds exactly like you. The "belief" is different but the "expression" is the same ol'.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd add the synoptics saying that Jesus called the disciples in Galilee, while John says they joined him at the Jordan. John says that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but the synoptics seem to know nothing of this, while John passes over the transfiguration without a mention. Luke adds on the miraculous draft of fishes to the calling of the disciples and the penitent thief to the Crucifixion, none of which is mentioned by the others, though John does have a miraculous draft of fishes - but after the resurrection! But then his Temple cleansing is missing, but an identical event occurs even before the baptism. And, after the women discover the empty tomb, the resurrection accounts disagree on practically everything.
,
