Evolutionism.

ThickStemz said:

He listed two, he said something about a retna being upside down but gave no explanation, and then went on to talk about a quala or panda thumb but it eats bamboo well. I didn't address that point because he gave no evidence and that which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

He compared the bad design of a pinto with no one would say then that it didn't have a designer. The reason there is relevance to the Christian god is that Christians are behind this Intelligent Design movement (ID) but there is a vast difference between the god of ID and the Christian God, who is supposed to be perfect.

I know more about the bible and theology than the average person, but I wouldn't say I'm an expert. I grew up in a fundamentalist home and never remember believing it. Of course I felt guilty and that there was something wrong with me. I tried for years to force myself into belief, and I couldn't. I finally realized it was total bullshit. Even the bible. It isn't a coherent message and its all mixed up. The OT is just one of gods failures after another, he keeps screwing up and blaming it on man.

The NT has 4 anonymous gospels with different incompatible stories about Jesus, then you have Acts and the letters that never really talk about jesus except through revelation. I don't think the man actually existed. Have you looked into Dr. Richard Carrier's work on this? He makes a compelling case.

Its difficult to have this conversation with a Christian because I could do a complete dissection of what I see as Christianity, and because of the number of denominations you'd have wiggle room. Its like trying to nail jello to a wall.

I know why youre opposed to evolution. With evolution there is no Adam and Eve, which means no original sin, which totally negates the need for Jesus to come. Evolution is a death nail to Christianity.

Click to expand...

ThickStemz said:

Well, there are 4 canonical gospels, there were dozens of others that aren't included. None of the bible ones claim to be eyewitness reports, and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were just assigned to them, we have no idea who wrote them, and exactly when they were written, but our oldest surviving piece of any of the canonical gospels comes from about 230ad, and its the size of a credit card.

The gospels don't agree with each other. They have differing accounts on a lot of things. Do you really think the Jesus depicted in John is like the meek and mild Jesus depicted in the others? Matthew and Luke just copied Mark for the most part, and John is just way way out there different. Jesus is more of a superman figure there. His personality is much different in John.

How about inconsistencies with major events like Jesus throwing out the money changers from the Temple? John has Jesus starting off his 3 year ministry with this event, the others have Jesus doing this when he returns to Jerusalem in the last week of his life.

How about the different genealogies given for Jesus, the names are not the same in the gospels that provide them.
Gospel of Matthew:
Eliud
Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph & Mary *
Jesus

Gospel of John:
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus

These are the generations prior to jesus, each goes further back, and each continues to be different.

These are things that cannot both be correct. This is Josephs line as it goes back through David in each.

Also, they have Jesus being crucified on different days. There is no agreement in the gospels on this.

There is also the event of Jesus getting pissed at the fig tree. One gospel says it withered immediately, another has it withering the next morning?



There is no way this book is inspired by god.

Just take 10 minutes and watch this, see if you're curious....

Click to expand...

SamsonsRiddle said:

and please no more videos of 12 year old boys

Click to expand...

ThickStemz said:

Thanks for the reply. You're right. It's such a broad and complex topic that it is hard to pin down and talk about.

The new testament wasn't written in Aramaic. That's how we know the deciples didn't write it. Those were poor uneducated people.

The original documents of the new testiment were written in Greek by educated men. Greek isn't as hard of a language to translate from. Its telling that your didnt even know it wasn't written in Aramaic.

As to the ancestry of jesus, giving one for both Joseph and marry isn't the correct answer. They both say Joseph. The difference is becuase their goals are different. Matthew wants to have a royal genealogy. Luke wants a line back to god which is why he goes to adam. Plus many of the names along the way are in there... too coincidentall to be one from each parent.

And we all know Mary wasn't a virgin. It's a mistranslation from the Greek word for young woman.

You've presented some arguments that get the gospels to harmonize. No one argument you gave is impossible. But them all being that way and leading to one cohesive story is a long shot. Very unlikely.

What is far more likely is the scenario put to us by secular scholors.

The gospels talk about how famous jesus was. We have writings that confirm all kinds of people throughout history who had a similar "life" to jesus. They made similar claims. Apalonious of Tyan for instance. He is a confirmed historical figure. Outside of the bible no one talks about jesus. There are NO contemporary independet sources.

Two are often named. Jocephus, tacitus

These are not independent. Jocephus only mentions that there are people who follow a christ. And the Tacitus guy wasn't writing anywhere near that time. They're only repeating what christians are telling them.

But in reality there were people who were in and around Jerusalem who wrote a lot and took interest in such things. Philo of Alexandria for instance... a cult leader who stormed the temple mount and kicked out the merchants there would have drawn his interest.

Oddly enough he does mention christ. Or.. he mentions jesus anyway. Jesus was the name of a celestial being who some jews were worshiping at that time. He was an angelic like being. Not a person.

The gospels seem far more likely in this light. The presentation of jesus the angel having come down to live...

There were a lot of popular movements in religion at that time. Dying and rising gods who offered personal salvation.

Zalmoxis, Romulus, Inanna, Adonis just to name the ones we know predate the christ myth.

The jews saw these cults and wanted their own.

If you examine the cargo cults of the south pacific you'd find a religion that developed in 30 years or less where the natives there were worshiping the cargo of the US war machine. Initially anyone could 'have a revelation' and add new information to this religion.

You can imagine how any Tom Dick or Harry claiming a revelation could be cumbersome. So a messianic figure was developed. He was even supposed to return.

You seem to be a smart man. I was a fundamentalist christian for many years. Life experience pulled me from the faith and I'm so glad for it.

But this whole concept of Christianity makes much more sense from the concept of myth than all the things you said would have to happen.

If you want to limit this to one or two issues at a time, please limit it. I'm add ad I can't find one thing to focus on myself. I've got this entire framework in my mind and it's hard for me to limit it.

As to the age of the earth... I know it doesn't say that's the age. And hey, your scenario is another one of those things that is just so unlikely that it's difficult to accept.

That 12 year old by the way, is dr. Richard carrier. He's a highly intelligent and interesting man. I'm not an expert but he is.

He is an advocate of the christ myth theory. And although we can't say jesus never existed. The christ we know from the bible is pure myth.

Click to expand...

SamsonsRiddle said:

Have you ever heard of Q? That's the original aramaic writings the greek text was translated from. The jews at the time spoke aramaic, not greek and that would obviously make why it was written in aramaic and translated to greek. It's a pretty simple concept.

You can claim that about the mistranslation of mary being a virgin, but then you would have to prove that to the thousands of different scholars who have translated it that way for a LONG time. It was a piece from the old testament that was prophesied to happen and did. However, after jesus she did have at least two children Jude and James, Jesus' half brothers. I always hear the new age christians saying "god didn't hate esau, he just strongly disliked him." People just want god to fit into their mold and change his word accordingly, instead of finding out who he really is intimately.

I know spiritual things are impossible to understand carnally, and therefore the authenticity of god's word can't come from your own intelligent reasoning.




Geneaology:
A more straightforward and the most common explanation is that Luke's genealogy is of Mary, with Eli being her father, while Matthew's describes the genealogy of Joseph.[40] This view was advanced as early as John of Damascus (d.749).

Luke's text says that Jesus was "a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Eli".[41] The qualification has traditionally been understood as acknowledgment of the virgin birth, but some instead see a parenthetical expression: "a son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Eli."[42] In this interpretation, Jesus is called a son of Eli because Eli was his maternal grandfather, his nearest male ancestor.[40] A variation on this idea is to explain "Joseph son of Eli" as meaning a son-in-law,[43] perhaps even an adoptive heir to Eli through his only daughter Mary.[44] An example of the Old Testament use of such an expression is Jair, who is called "Jair son of Manasseh"[45] but was actually son of Manasseh's granddaughter.[46] In any case, the argument goes, it is natural for the evangelist, acknowledging the unique case of the virgin birth, to give the maternal genealogy of Jesus, while expressing it a bit awkwardly in the traditional patrilinear style.

According to R. A. Torrey, the reason Mary is not implicitly mentioned by name is because the ancient Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law.[47]

Lightfoot[43] sees confirmation in an obscure passage of the Talmud,[48] which, as he reads it, refers to "Mary daughter of Eli"; however, both the identity of this Mary and the reading are doubtful.[49] Patristic tradition, on the contrary, consistently identifies Mary's father as Joachim. It has been suggested that Eli is short for Eliakim,[40] which in the Old Testament is an alternate name of Jehoiakim,[50] for whom Joachim is named.

The theory neatly accounts for the genealogical divergence. It is consistent with the early tradition ascribing a Davidic ancestry to Mary. It is also consistent with Luke's intimate acquaintance with Mary, in contrast to Matthew's focus on Joseph's perspective

Click to expand...

ThickStemz said:

Q is jusr a hypothetically asserted explanation. We can't say it's in Aramaic becuase no one has ever seen Q.

The gospels don't say, anywhere within them, that they came from Q.

Q is a guess to explain why the gospels tell the same story but yet have so many differences.

That also takes away from your earlier point about 4 views by 4 different authors with their own perspective.


Consider the following. The story of Barabas. His name means 'son of the father' in Aramaic.

Story is that the Romans offered to either release Jesus or Barabas, a violent treasonous murderer. We know what happend. Barabas was freed and jesus was executed.

Compare this with the tradition of Yam Kippur. Two identical sheep are taken, the jews release one, the other they put all their sins on and execute.

Jesus was a made up man myth to replace the Temple. I doubt you can find any writings about jesus exist prior to the destruction of the Temple. The temple was destroyed and how would the jews then get rid of sins. The logical framework for this is in Hebrews 9.

Click to expand...

shorelineOG said:

You should tell a mosque full of young Muslim men that the Qur'an is false, then draw a picture of Muhammad. The sodomites and evangelical agnostics have safety and freedom because of the Christians with guns.

Click to expand...

ThickStemz said:

Q is not the Quran.

And frankly the Christians would have had the same reaction you anticipate from the Muslims not too long ago. It isn't Christianity that has lead to a civil society, it is secular values that have been imposed upon a Christian population, who has been kicking and screaming in opposition the whole way, but who has been slowly bent into proper form.

Click to expand...

ThickStemz said:

Q is not the Quran.

And frankly the Christians would have had the same reaction you anticipate from the Muslims not too long ago. It isn't Christianity that has lead to a civil society, it is secular values that have been imposed upon a Christian population, who has been kicking and screaming in opposition the whole way, but who has been slowly bent into proper form.

Click to expand...

shorelineOG said:

My point is you don't live in a Muslim country. Many of our laws are based on Jewish law. The torah and the new testament civilized man, and even gave them dietary laws and laws for cleanliness. The more religious a Christian is they become charitable or even pacifist like the Quakers and Amish. We know what happens when Muslims become deeply religious. Have you ever seen how savage most cultures are before Christianity? Hindus and Buddhist are also peaceful people but they have been forced to defend themselves from Muslim invaders.

Click to expand...

ThickStemz said:

You live in a delusion of your own mind.

The first 1500 years of christianity are as brutal and bloody as any period. The inquisition. The 30 years war. The crusades against the cathars and north eastern Europe are as bloody as any Islamic period.

You're so far off base you're not even really worthy of responding to.

Click to expand...

shorelineOG said:

You don't know your history either. The spread of the ottoman empire. We should of let the Aztecs keep their daily routine of chopping off heads for the sun. Like los zetas do today with Santa muerte. Some religions civilize people more than others. Millions of people die because of "immoral " behavior. Even if you don't believe the old testament, it is a very good read. Some of it is relevant today.

Click to expand...