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.
Meh, or perhaps it was just a miracle in more ways than was either known or asserted at the time. The miraculous is the deux ex machina of choice for Christians, so this is not going to sway them.
Oh, I’m well aware that the brilliance of my repartee will do nothing to win and change theist hearts and minds. Nor do I really care to. I’m just complimenting our fair feline monarch on his observation and adding a few of my own musings for good measure.
Well, OP check out my recent post (today) in Advent 2022 I talk about the mythology and symbolism of the Nativity story but also the fact that it is clearly a myth, a fabricated story, although ripe with symbolic teachings.
So we can start with Jesus' birth. A demigod (the off spring of a god with a mortal) is nothing new, in fact here is a whole lsit
One scientific fact: there has never been a known documented case of virgin birth, and IF it were to happen, then the offspring would ALWAYS be female, as the Y chromosome can only come from a male.
Consider too that Virgin Births were nothing new , including to the Nativity Myth.
Then there was the journey to Bethlehem (Luke's gospel circa 90 CE) vs already living there (Matthews gospel circa 60 CE) During Augustus' reign, as mentioned in Luke, NO Census was ever taken. Rome did take a census, on more than one occasion, but people did not travel to their hometowns for it. They were, as now, counted in place. AS for taxation, (as in King James Versions) citizens of occupied kingdoms such as Judea were not taxed by Rome.
SO discussing the topic at hand, the birth itself starts off with items taken from mythology or otherwise fabricated. And that is just the very beginning. To list all the myths of the Gospels will take us well into the next year, but will be most interesting.
Christians won't accept Jesus springing from mythology. In my thread "I can prove Jesus is a myth" I laid out pretty much the whole 9 yards of gods that Jesus derived from in Rank-Raglan's theory. No Christian will address your points Because they are incapable of confronting the reality their god is derived from other mythologies. I've already shown that Yahweh is a minor Canaanite god. If Yahweh is pagan then Jesus prayed to a pagan god. That makes Jesus a pagan entity.
any thread or any atheist or any opening post which drags out the tired trope of "prove someone in the Bible exists" misses entirely the whole point of religion and spirituality altogether. and if an OP demonstrates they miss entirely the whole point of religion and spirituality altogether, then that accounts in large part for the dearth of the types of participation which the OP apparently desires.
yes atheists can post about anything they want in the religion and spirituality forum. but trying to browbeat insult and demand others engage in discussion, and calling views which may differ from theirs "rubbish" is not a recipe for robust dialog.
Your post brings up a very salient feature of Christianity: the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
And I want the lurkers to read and understand the bold very carefully:
Why is Christianity rooted in believing without proof?
Because as I have demonstrated:
Christianity has NO proof to offer that their avatar man-god Jesus is real--any more than Greeks have proof to offer that their Zeus, Dionysus Heracles et al are real.
What do you do with a deficiency as gaping as NO PROOF?
You turn that deficiency into an asset, of course.
You make believing without seeing a virtue. You make believing without a nickel's worth of evidence for your god a plus, not a minus.
That's the whole genesis of the doctrine of faith--believing without seeing. Churchmen hammer into your consciousness:
God is pleased when you believe in Jesus without asking for evidence he was real.
God is angered when you ask for evidence for Jesus, even though for anything else outside of Christianity you'd never fail to ask for proof something you are buying is legitimate.
And people fall for this con like dominoes in a 10,000 mile-long chain--how, I have no idea.
.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 12-26-2022 at 06:56 PM..
If the bible were configuration managed, it would be on revision 69 by now.
18 Ways the Bible has Changed throughout History, Larry Holzwarth
A new edition of the Bible, with 20,000 revisions ...LA Times
Rewritten Scripture - Oxford Handbooks Online
New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVUE)
The Bible Pre-1946 - First United Methodist Church
How Bible Stories Evolved Over The Centuries - NPR
Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times
18 Ways The Bible Has Changed Since It Was First Written - Ranker
I hunted down the first one on your list, and to be honest, it's kind of a nothing-burger. There was no dark conspiracy to alter the KJV. All he discusses are some printing errors that were eventually corrected (most notably, the Wicked Bible, so called because it said "thou shalt commit adultery", the incorporation of the letter J when it came into use, and the tidying up of some other anachronisms. Although I will say that the opener about conspiracy theorists who think the particle accelerator at CERN is altering the text of the KJV was pretty funny.
I have chided my fellow unbelievers more than once here when they claim or imply that the Bible translation process is producing substantially different Bible editions or that there are "translations of translations". I don't believe the Bible is god's word anymore, but arguments that express ignorance of what translation is and isn't, and conflates the process of scribal copying with translation, or even wrongly states that the scribal copying has resulted in massive changes, is just not helpful. The Bible has logical holes you can drive a truck through, but apart from a few glaring exceptions (e.g., the last part of the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark, the one with the snake handling passages, which even fundamentalists and inerrantists acknowledge was a later addition), the Bible we have today is consistent with being a reasonable representation of the original texts. The problem is not that the original text of the Bible is lost or corrupt in any substantive way; would that it WERE the problem. The problem is it's full of hogwash and bad advice (occasionally alongside some really nice soaring prose) and always has been.
I had originally wanted to do a Part 2 on this but I'd like to present my additional evidence in the form of a discussion with Christians. The problem has been NO Christian has been willing to step forth and defend their savior god when I extend this invitation to them. So I figure the best way to approach the issue at this point is to just throw it out there as a new thread and see if anyone in the Christian camp is brave enough to take on a friendly debate.
My contention: the Jesus of the gospels is a mythical character pure and simple. History shows he never existed. Any Christians want to contest my claim? Step forth.
Jesus says you can find out for yourself if what he says is true. You won't be able to find out in any other way.
John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
So all your researching to try to prove to me that Jesus never existed is coming from someone who has no experience in the matter.
the conversation you are having is with yourself.
enjoy.
and that's actually a good thing.
may you come to a place of peace, in your musing and wrestling with this.
I appreciate the sentiments.
I can usually tell when I have struck a nerve. The Christian usually responds with:
"Enjoy talking to yourself. Nobody is listening."
The feeling I get is that the Christian is gritting their teeth and smoking under their collar that they cannot retort with anything more substantive than "Enjoy your own company".
Well, look Tzap, I can appreciate the position Christians are in. Remember I was a Christian once myself and atheists were taunting me with "Show us proof Jesus is real" and I couldn't do it and that just chapped my hide too.
If you're happy with your beliefs that is all that matters. You've heard both sides at least. That's all I care about.
Your post brings up a very salient feature of Christianity: the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
And I want the lurkers to read and understand the bold very carefully:
Why is Christianity rooted in believing without proof?
Because as I have demonstrated:
Christianity has NO proof to offer that their avatar man-god Jesus is real--any more than Greeks have proof to offer that their Zeus, Dionysus Heracles et al are real.
What do you do with a deficiency as gaping as NO PROOF?
You turn that deficiency into an asset, of course.
You make believing without seeing a virtue. You make believing without a nickel's worth of evidence for your god a plus, not a minus.
That's the whole genesis of the doctrine of faith--believing without seeing. Churchmen hammer into your consciousness:
God is pleased whread the above.en you believe in Jesus without asking for evidence he was real.
God is angered when you ask for evidence for Jesus, even though for anything else outside of Christianity you'd never fail to ask for proof something you are buying is legitimate.
And people fall for this con like dominoes in a 10,000 mile-long chain--how, I have no idea.
.
This is the Post 54 you want me to read before debating you. I have read the above. You want proof? It is a demand not unlike someone in making a business deal demanding "show me the money!"
Even among businessmen, there is a need for rapport upon which a relationship is struck. There is no need to deal with everyone in the marketplace. Birds of a feather flock together. If Christianity does not appeal to you, then you will not be receptive to anything it has to offer.
There are an estimated number of two and a half billion Christians in the world. Many of them share your unhappy experience of unanswered prayers. Some responded like you did and gave up on Christianity. They moved on. Others, like me, remain faithful even though life is tough no matter how hard we pray for a better world in which to live.
While I never thought the idea of Mary’s virginal conception to be true, or capable of truth, for a whole host of reasons, that’s a major plot hole I hadn’t ever considered. In fairness to the New Testament’s writers, this tidbit of scientific knowledge was discovered eons after the fact. And even today, any number of deus ex machinae could be employed to solve this dilemma. For example, perhaps Mary was intersex, making Christ’s divine conception far more miraculous than the old virgin birth trope!
So making remarks about Mary being an "intersex" is okay here?
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.
