Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[JayL]

An addition: even if the errors are just grammatical, this really means the Bible is not inerrant. Might be nitpicking semantics, but it still holds true. Now, roy or ray or whatever, I spent 30 years dedicating every minute of my life to the study of Christianity, which was my religion at the time. My specialties are New Testament textual studies and patristic theology. So don't come here with any topics on those two subjects and expect people to just follow your word. You've got to get by me first.

 

If you don't mind may I ask your personal opinion? When do you think Mark, Matthew, Luke/Act and the Gospel of John were written? I'm interested in your educated guess. Say to the nearest decade or so.

 

Sure. Mark, probably around 70 CE, it's possible Mark could have been written just before the destruction of Jerusalem, but probably not before Nero's death in 68; Luke, around 75-80; Matthew right around this same time as Luke, after the destruction, probably a little after, but possibly a little before Luke; and John, between 95-100 CE.

 

 

Both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts seemed to have been written within the life time of Apostle Paul. That would put them before A.D. 67

[JayL]

Happy Easter everyone!

 

 

HE IS RISEN! Hallelujah!

[Thought2Much]

Happy Easter everyone!

 

 

HE IS RISEN! Hallelujah!

 

So, uh...

 

Where is he, then? Could he drop by for some tea, and clarify a few things for us? Maybe explain in person a few of the verses in the Bible that seem to be causing some confusion? Maybe he could do a couple of miracles in front of a nationwide audience and on video so that he can confirm he is the son of God?

 

No? He's in heaven, you say? Gee, how fucking convenient.

[Astreja]

Where is he, then? Could he drop by for some tea, and clarify a few things for us?

 

...No? He's in heaven, you say? Gee, how fucking convenient.

 

Já, a little *too* convenient. I think Jay's Jesus suffers from a bad case of The Dragon in Carl Sagan's Garage syndrome. We ask for evidence, and all we get is excuses.

[Thought2Much]

Where is he, then? Could he drop by for some tea, and clarify a few things for us?

 

...No? He's in heaven, you say? Gee, how fucking convenient.

 

Já, a little *too* convenient. I think Jay's Jesus suffers from a bad case of The Dragon in Carl Sagan's Garage syndrome. We ask for evidence, and all we get is excuses.

 

I'm wondering more and more how the hell this absolutely fucking stupid religion ever caught on in the first place.

 

Could you imagine convincing people that your leader, who was crucified by the Romans, has come back to life, and when people ask if they can see him themselves, you reply, "Well... uh... no. He left! He went straight up into heaven! We saw it! We were all there, and we all saw it! Okay, so we weren't all there, but some of us were... but trust me, he's alive!"

 

It's just stupid. There is no other word to describe it (that isn't a synonym for stupid, that is).

[Ouroboros]

HE IS RISEN! Hallelujah!

Are you talking about your private parts again?

[JayL]

Happy Easter everyone!

 

 

HE IS RISEN! Hallelujah!

 

So, uh...

 

Where is he, then? Could he drop by for some tea, and clarify a few things for us? Maybe explain in person a few of the verses in the Bible that seem to be causing some confusion? Maybe he could do a couple of miracles in front of a nationwide audience and on video so that he can confirm he is the son of God?

 

No? He's in heaven, you say? Gee, how fucking convenient.

 

 

 

My friend, you gotta believe. Without faith, you will not access the spiritual reality.

 

Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

[JayL]

Where is he, then? Could he drop by for some tea, and clarify a few things for us?

 

...No? He's in heaven, you say? Gee, how fucking convenient.

 

Já, a little *too* convenient. I think Jay's Jesus suffers from a bad case of The Dragon in Carl Sagan's Garage syndrome. We ask for evidence, and all we get is excuses.

 

I'm wondering more and more how the hell this absolutely fucking stupid religion ever caught on in the first place.

 

Could you imagine convincing people that your leader, who was crucified by the Romans, has come back to life, and when people ask if they can see him themselves, you reply, "Well... uh... no. He left! He went straight up into heaven! We saw it! We were all there, and we all saw it! Okay, so we weren't all there, but some of us were... but trust me, he's alive!"

 

It's just stupid. There is no other word to describe it (that isn't a synonym for stupid, that is).

 

 

 

If you think Christianity is stupid, here is THE best way to get rid of it. The whole Christian faith hinges on the resurrection of Christ ( Easter Sunday tomorrow marks the event.) . If you can convincingly disprove the resurrection event, Poof !!!!, the whole thing disappears. No more Christianity.

[Thought2Much]

I've already disproved it. Where's Jesus? Hello? Hello, Jesus? Where are you? Hello?

 

Huh. No answer. Probably because the guy's a bit busy, you know, on account of BEING DEAD FOR TWO THOUSAND YEARS, and all.

 

He's not standing at the door an knocking. This implies actual communication, something which your fucked up god doesn't ever do, because that would supposedly screw up the concept of "free will" that's never actually talked about in the Bible anyway.

 

I had faith for a long time. There was no spiritual reality. Because God doesn't exist, and because Jesus was hung on a cross, and is still dead today.

[JayL]

I've already disproved it. Where's Jesus? Hello? Hello, Jesus? Where are you? Hello?

 

Huh. No answer. Probably because the guy's a bit busy, you know, on account of BEING DEAD FOR TWO THOUSAND YEARS, and all.

 

He's not standing at the door an knocking. This implies actual communication, something which your fucked up god doesn't ever do, because that would supposedly screw up the concept of "free will" that's never actually talked about in the Bible anyway.

 

I had faith for a long time. There was no spiritual reality. Because God doesn't exist, and because Jesus was hung on a cross, and is still dead today.

 

 

Horatio:

O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

 

Hamlet:

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[agnosticator]

If you think Christianity is stupid, here is THE best way to get rid of it. The whole Christian faith hinges on the resurrection of Christ ( Easter Sunday tomorrow marks the event.) . If you can convincingly disprove the resurrection event, Poof !!!!, the whole thing disappears. No more Christianity.

 

Wrong word! You can't disprove what has never been proven to begin with!

[Thought2Much]

If you think Christianity is stupid, here is THE best way to get rid of it. The whole Christian faith hinges on the resurrection of Christ ( Easter Sunday tomorrow marks the event.) . If you can convincingly disprove the resurrection event, Poof !!!!, the whole thing disappears. No more Christianity.

 

Wrong word! You can't disprove what has never been proven to begin with!

 

And you know what? I actually know that, but people like Jay don't understand the concept. Once you say that something can't be disproved, they take that as meaning their imaginary friend must therefore exist, and think they've won whatever argument they're in.

[agnosticator]

And you know what? I actually know that, but people like Jay don't understand the concept. Once you say that something can't be disproved, they take that as meaning their imaginary friend must therefore exist, and think they've won whatever argument they're in.

 

Yes! And then he'll say we are being stubborn and rebellious. Like we hate Christians, when it's their flawed, convoluted arguments that are really just assertions that drive us crazy! Whatever happened to believing by faith. Reasonable faith is a contradiction.

[mymistake]

If you think Christianity is stupid, here is THE best way to get rid of it. The whole Christian faith hinges on the resurrection of Christ ( Easter Sunday tomorrow marks the event.) . If you can convincingly disprove the resurrection event, Poof !!!!, the whole thing disappears. No more Christianity.

 

Wrong word! You can't disprove what has never been proven to begin with!

 

Now the idiot wants us to prove a negative? Really what university would hand him a master's degree and not teach him why it's stupid to make such demands?

 

We can prove a negative regarding an all good, all powerful and all knowing God creating this universe. Yet despite proving this is impossible many religious people, including Christians, continue to worship a God that could not exist. I submit that even if we could prove there was no resurrection the mindless lemmings would continue on as if it never happened.

[Ouroboros]

If you think Christianity is stupid, here is THE best way to get rid of it. The whole Christian faith hinges on the resurrection of Christ ( Easter Sunday tomorrow marks the event.) . If you can convincingly disprove the resurrection event, Poof !!!!, the whole thing disappears. No more Christianity.

The whole Islam faith hinges on Mohammad getting the revelations from Allah and going to Heaven and speak to Abraham. If you can convincingly disprove that Mohammad didn't , Poof !!!!, the whole thing disappears. No more Islam.

 

 

So, yes, Christianity is stupid.

[★ Citsonga ★]

If you think Christianity is stupid, here is THE best way to get rid of it. The whole Christian faith hinges on the resurrection of Christ ( Easter Sunday tomorrow marks the event.) . If you can convincingly disprove the resurrection event, Poof !!!!, the whole thing disappears. No more Christianity.

 

Prove that there's not an invisible unicorn living in my back yard.

 

You can't do it, so it *must* be true! There must be an invisible unicorn living in my back yard, because JayL can't prove that there isn't!

 

OK, let's move beyond showing how ridiculous your argument is. First, the resurrection accounts in the Bible are hopelessly contradictory, so they are not reliable sources of information. Second, NT writers repeatedly took OT texts completely out of context in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments, which is an underhanded tactic that anyone with a true story to tell would not need to stoop to. These facts prove that the story was concocted and is nothing more than mythology, and you can't get a literal resurrection from a myth. This disproves the resurrection as much as any historical claim can be disproven.

[★ Citsonga ★]

If you think Christianity is stupid, here is THE best way to get rid of it. The whole Christian faith hinges on the resurrection of Christ ( Easter Sunday tomorrow marks the event.) . If you can convincingly disprove the resurrection event, Poof !!!!, the whole thing disappears. No more Christianity.

The whole Islam faith hinges on Mohammad getting the revelations from Allah and going to Heaven and speak to Abraham. If you can convincingly disprove that Mohammad didn't , Poof !!!!, the whole thing disappears. No more Islam.

 

 

So, yes, Christianity is stupid.

 

Exactly! By JayL's so-called logic, *anything* that cannot be disproven *must* be true! It's quite sad that so many religious people just don't see how ridiculous that is.

 

Regardless, though, as I mentioned in my previous post, the resurrection can be disproven as well as any historical claim can be disproven.

[JayL]

If you think Christianity is stupid, here is THE best way to get rid of it. The whole Christian faith hinges on the resurrection of Christ ( Easter Sunday tomorrow marks the event.) . If you can convincingly disprove the resurrection event, Poof !!!!, the whole thing disappears. No more Christianity.

The whole Islam faith hinges on Mohammad getting the revelations from Allah and going to Heaven and speak to Abraham. If you can convincingly disprove that Mohammad didn't , Poof !!!!, the whole thing disappears. No more Islam.

 

 

So, yes, Christianity is stupid.

 

Exactly! By JayL's so-called logic, *anything* that cannot be disproven *must* be true! It's quite sad that so many religious people just don't see how ridiculous that is.

 

Regardless, though, as I mentioned in my previous post, the resurrection can be disproven as well as any historical claim can be disproven.

 

 

 

I can guess why you all shy away from my challenge. If you look deep enough into resurrection issue, you would be in danger of becoming a believer.

 

 

Happy Easter Sunday, everyone. God loves you !

[mymistake]

What a stupid, obvious troll.

[mcdaddy]

Funny. Looking into it is what led me to agnosticism/atheism. The fact that theres ZERO evidence it ever happened tells me something. No, the gospel storybooks don't count as "evidence". If they do, then I guess The Odyssey is evidence for Cyclops.

[★ Citsonga ★]

If you think Christianity is stupid, here is THE best way to get rid of it. The whole Christian faith hinges on the resurrection of Christ ( Easter Sunday tomorrow marks the event.) . If you can convincingly disprove the resurrection event, Poof !!!!, the whole thing disappears. No more Christianity.

The whole Islam faith hinges on Mohammad getting the revelations from Allah and going to Heaven and speak to Abraham. If you can convincingly disprove that Mohammad didn't , Poof !!!!, the whole thing disappears. No more Islam.

 

 

So, yes, Christianity is stupid.

 

Exactly! By JayL's so-called logic, *anything* that cannot be disproven *must* be true! It's quite sad that so many religious people just don't see how ridiculous that is.

 

Regardless, though, as I mentioned in my previous post, the resurrection can be disproven as well as any historical claim can be disproven.

 

 

 

I can guess why you all shy away from my challenge. If you look deep enough into resurrection issue, you would be in danger of becoming a believer.

 

 

Happy Easter Sunday, everyone. God loves you !

 

Oh, the irony!

 

JayL, most of us used to be believers! For many of us it was looking deep into the Bible and Christianity that made us wake up to the reality that it's mythology.

 

Why didn't you take up my challenge? Here it is again:

 

If you think Christianity is stupid, here is THE best way to get rid of it. The whole Christian faith hinges on the resurrection of Christ ( Easter Sunday tomorrow marks the event.) . If you can convincingly disprove the resurrection event, Poof !!!!, the whole thing disappears. No more Christianity.

 

Prove that there's not an invisible unicorn living in my back yard.

 

You can't do it, so it *must* be true! There must be an invisible unicorn living in my back yard, because JayL can't prove that there isn't!

 

OK, let's move beyond showing how ridiculous your argument is. First, the resurrection accounts in the Bible are hopelessly contradictory, so they are not reliable sources of information. Second, NT writers repeatedly took OT texts completely out of context in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments, which is an underhanded tactic that anyone with a true story to tell would not need to stoop to. These facts prove that the story was concocted and is nothing more than mythology, and you can't get a literal resurrection from a myth. This disproves the resurrection as much as any historical claim can be disproven.

 

Now, here's an Easter message for you, my friend:

 

The Resurrection

 

As we are well aware, the crux of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. It has been summed up like this: "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (I Corinthians 15:17-19). So, with Christianity hinging on this very issue, one would expect the Bible to be very consistent with the details surrounding Jesus' resurrection, right?

 

As far as the women visiting the tomb, Matthew mentions "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" (Matt 28:1), Mark mentions "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome" (Mark 16:1), Luke mentions "Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them" (Luke 24:10), and John mentions only "Mary Magdalene" (John 20:1), though her use of the term "we" when talking to the disciples (John 20:2) could imply that she was not alone. These are the women whom the following point pertains to.

 

John's account says, "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre" (John 20:1). Mark, on the other hand, says, "They came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun" (Mark 16:2); in other words, "When the sun had risen" (NASB), or, "Just after sunrise" (NIV). Matthew is in the middle, claiming that they came "as it began to dawn" (Matt 28:1). Some claim that what we're dealing with is events unfolding as the sun was rising. In other words, John was referring to it still being dark when the women set out to go to the tomb, Matthew was referring to the dawn breaking while they were on their way, and Mark was referring to the sun having risen by the time that they arrived at the tomb. On the surface, this may sound acceptable. However, John's account refers to it being "yet dark" when Mary "cometh... unto the sepulchre" (John 20:1), and not when she started her journey there.

 

Matthew says that the angel "rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it" (Matt 28:2). With the angel sitting on the stone, we read, "And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you" (Matt 28:5-7). So, according to Matthew, the women encounter the angel outside the tomb, and the angel invites them to go in and see where Jesus had been laid.

 

Mark, however, tells a different version, saying, "And when they (the women) looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you" (Mark 16:4-7). The angel says much the same thing as in Matthew's account, but one striking difference is that there is no invitation into the tomb, because the women are already inside! The statement, "And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man" (Mark 16:5), implies that the angel was seen fairly immediately upon the entry of the women. So, according to Mark, the women did not encounter the angel until entering the tomb!

 

Luke, which has two angels in the story, says, "And they (the women) entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words" (Luke 24:3-8). So, Luke places the angels inside the tomb, just like Mark. However, while Mark has the angel appearing as they entered the tomb (Mark 16:5), Luke has the two angels holding off until "it came to pass, as" the women stood there "perplexed" (Luke 24:4). It could be contended that not much time had passed yet, and therefore there is no real timing contradiction between Mark and Luke, but even so, there is still a big timing problem between Luke and Matthew (just like between Mark and Matthew), because Matthew has the women encounter the angel before entering the tomb.

 

John, on the other hand, says that when Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, she "seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him" (John 20:1-2). So, Mary comes to the tomb and runs off without encountering any angels! John has Mary assuming that Jesus' body had been stolen, while Luke clearly states that "they (the women, including Mary) remembered his (Jesus') words" that on "the third day" he would "rise again" (Luke 24:8)! In John's account, it's not until after Peter and "that other disciple," whom many presume to be John, run to the tomb to check it out (John 20:3-10) that Mary Magdalene has her angelic encounter! It is at that point that she "stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain" (John 20:11-12).

 

As we just saw, John's account has Peter (and another disciple) running to the tomb to check it out before the angels make their appearance (John 20:3-12). Luke, on the other hand, has Peter's trip to the tomb taking place after the angels appear and the women report it to the disciples (Luke 24:4-12)!

 

So, in light of all of these varying details, exactly when did the angel(s) appear? The gospels present a jumbled mess on this matter.

 

Moving on from the women's angelic encounter, Matthew says, "And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail, And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me" (Matt 28:8-10). So, according to Matthew, the women encounter Jesus before making it to the disciples.

 

John, on the other hand, has Mary Magdalene completing her trip from the tomb to the disciples, then Peter and another apostle's trip to the tomb, and then Mary's return to the tomb and subsequent encounter with the angels (John 20:1-13) all taking place before Jesus' first post-resurrection appearance (John 20:14-17)! Not only that, but according to John, this encounter took place right outside the tomb (John 20:11-14), while Matthew has Jesus' first appearance taking place somewhere between the tomb and the disciples, interrupting the women's run to the disciples (Matt 28:8-10)!

 

According to Luke, the risen Jesus' first appearances to disciples were to a couple on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-32) and to Simon Peter (Luke 24:34), after which the first time Jesus reveals himself to the disciples collectively takes place in Jerusalem (Luke 24:33-49). John says that they were in a closed room (John 20:19-23), which could easily be meant as the same place. However, according to Matthew the place where Jesus first reveals himself as risen to the disciples is on a mountain in Galilee (Matt 28:16ff)!

 

In Luke's account, after Jesus reveals himself to the disciples in Jerusalem, he then takes them to Bethany, where he is "carried up into heaven" (Luke 24:50-51). However, John has an eight day delay before Jesus appears again to the disciples, this time with Thomas there (John 20:26-29), and a later appearance at the "sea of Tiberius" (John 21). These details in John, along with the Acts claim that the risen Jesus remained for forty days (Acts 1:3) before "a cloud received him out of their sight" (Acts 1:9), conflict with the flow of events in Luke's narrative regarding the ascension mentioned above.

 

In addition, Luke places the ascension in Bethany (Luke 24:50-51), while Acts claims that it took place at "the mount called Olivet" (Acts 1:12). The Mount of Olives is not in Bethany, and is actually closer to Jerusalem than Bethany. (Regarding this discrepancy, even Tyndale's "New Bible Dictionary" entry for "Olives, Mount Of" admits, "The visitor to Palestine learns the futility of pondering insolubles.")

 

If God really had raised Jesus back to life to save us from our sins, and if the Bible really was God's Word, then would the Bible's details surrounding Jesus' resurrection be such a terribly jumbled, contradictory mess?

[★ Citsonga ★]

Now, JayL, regarding the NT writers taking OT texts out of context (which I mentioned above), here you go:

 

FABRICATED PROPHETIC FULFILLMENTS

 

One of the most significant Christian claims is that Jesus fulfilled numerous Old Testament prophecies, and therefore he must be the Messiah. If Jesus had indeed fulfilled numerous prophecies specifically directed at him, then that would definitely be something to strongly consider. Many Christians assume, as I did for many years, that such is the case, and that there is no question that Jesus of Nazareth is the prophesied Savior. But did he really fulfill numerous prophecies? Let's take a look at some of those claims.

 

The Virgin Birth

 

After Matthew mentions Mary's virginal conception from the Holy Ghost and the angel visiting Joseph (Matt 1:18-21), we read, "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Matt 1:22-23). So, Matthew quotes a prophecy and says that it was fulfilled in Mary and Jesus. But is this really a fulfilled prophecy?

 

Matthew was quoting Isaiah saying, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). But is this really the open-and-shut case that it may appear on the surface to be? Let's take a look at the context.

 

During the time when Israel had split into two, with Judah in the south and Israel in the north, Isaiah says that Aram and Israel (also referred to as "Ephraim") came against Judah during the reign of King Ahaz, and Ahaz and the people of Judah were afraid (Isaiah 7:1-2). So God sent Isaiah to comfort Ahaz, telling him that he will not be defeated by the other two kingdoms (Isaiah 7:3-9), and even gives a specific time-frame by saying, "Within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken" (Isaiah 7:8). Thus, Judah's enemy Ephraim is to be broken in no more than 65 years from the time of this prophecy.

 

Isaiah says that "the Lord" told Ahaz, "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God" (Isaiah 7:10-11). After that, Isaiah goes on to say, "Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign" (Isaiah 7:13-14). Now, who is this "sign" supposed to be for? Isaiah is speaking to King Ahaz concerning the battle issues he was dealing with right then, hundreds of years before the time of Christ! King Ahaz would be long dead before Jesus would arrive on the scene, at which time it would be much later than the 65 year limit specified in the previous verses! Clearly, there is a problem here.

 

Let's go on. What is the "sign"? The description that follows says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). Now, one thing that needs pointed out about the word "virgin" is that Jewish scholars say that the Hebrew term "almah" in Isaiah's account actually means "young woman" or "girl of marriageable age," with no necessary "virgin" connotation. The Hebrew term "bethuwlah" is the word that means "virgin," but it is not the word used in Isaiah 7:14. As such, they insist that the text should read the way the NRSV translates it: "Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."

 

When the Hebrew for Isaiah 7:14 was translated into Greek, "almah" was rendered as "parthenos," a Greek term usually meaning "virgin." Many scholars believe that this is a mistranslation. In turn, the author of Matthew clearly used the Greek translation as his source, and therefore used "parthenos" when quoting Isaiah in Matthew 1:23. Thus, Matthew did use a word usually meaning "virgin," but it appears to be based on a faulty Greek translation of Isaiah. In turn, it appears that most modern Christian translators base their translation of Isaiah on the Greek translation and the quotation in Matthew.

 

On the other hand, many Christian commentators agree that the Hebrew term "almah" means "young woman," but insist that it does have a "virgin" connotation, and therefore it is accurate to translate it as such. However, could this insistence that it be translated "virgin" be fueled by the Christian's theological necessity for it to mean "virgin"? After all, they clearly have a motivation to justify the use of this prophecy in Matthew. Beyond that, I have already demonstrated that the contextual limits on the passage indicate that it could not be about Jesus hundreds of years later, so the meaning of "almah" is not the only problem here anyway.

 

What then can we make of this debate about "almah"? Let's continue to examine the context to see what Isaiah was talking about.

 

Isaiah continues with, "For before the child shall know to refuse evil, and choose good" (Isaiah 7:16). Here we see another problem with the Christian claim that the prophesied child is Jesus. According to Christian belief, Jesus was completely sinless (1 John 3:5), so how could there be a time when he wouldn't know to refuse evil and choose good?

 

Continuing on, Isaiah tells King Ahaz that during the prophesied son's early years, "the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" (Isaiah 7:16). This is consistent with what Isaiah said earlier in the chapter: "For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people" (Isaiah 7:8-9a). It is interesting that Isaiah goes on talking about what it is supposed to be like "in that day" (Isaiah 7:18-25) and mentions the "king of Assyria" (Isaiah 7:20), and Assyria ceased to exist several centuries before the time of Jesus!

 

So, exactly who is the "son" that Isaiah was referring to? Perhaps his own! Take a look at what immediately follows this account. Isaiah says, "And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria" (Isaiah 8:3-4). This is a direct parallel to the account in the previous chapter. Isaiah and his wife (the "prophetess") conceive a son, and shortly thereafter Damascus/Syria and Samaria/Ephraim are supposed to be attacked and plundered (Isaiah 7:8-14; 8:3-4). Following the child's birth there is even a poetic oracle from "the Lord" (Isaiah 8:5-10) in which the term "Immanuel" is reiterated (Isaiah 8:8; compare to 7:14).

 

Some try to get around this glaring problem by arguing that Isaiah 7:14 is a "dual prophecy," having an immediate fulfillment and then an ultimate fulfillment in the virginal conception of Jesus (assuming that "almah" means "virgin"). However, such an argument requires that there was another virginal conception before Mary's! Of course, Christians would refuse to consider that possibility. Also, there is absolutely nothing in the context of Isaiah's prophecy to suggest that it was meant as a "dual prophecy." That concept is forced onto the text by Christians in an attempt to make it be something that it clearly isn't.

 

Beyond that, from Isaiah's account of the child's conception, it is apparent that the child was conceived in the normal way, because Isaiah says that he "went unto the prophetess; and she conceived" (Isaiah 8:3). From this, it is quite clear that the prophecy in question (Isaiah 7:14) does not refer to a virginal conception. From this, we can conclude that either the Jews are correct in asserting that the Hebrew term "almah" does not mean "virgin," or, if the Christians are correct in asserting that it does connote "virgin," then Isaiah must have simply meant that she was a virgin at the time the prophecy was issued, but not at the time of conception.

 

From this, the obvious conclusion is that the story of Mary and Jesus simply is not a fulfillment of a prophecy of a virginal conception, because that is not what the prophecy was claiming, nor does the context of the prophecy allow it to be about Jesus!

 

So, what really happened is that Matthew's account took Isaiah's statement out of context and inaccurately included it as a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus' alleged virgin birth. The author of Matthew clearly misused the prophecy he relied on and fabricated a prophetic fulfillment.

 

Bethlehem as Jesus' Birthplace

 

Matthew says that when some "wise men" go to Jerusalem seeking the "King of the Jews" (Matthew 2:1-2), King Herod calls the "chief priests and scribes," demanding that they tell him "where Christ should be born" (Matt 2:3-4). They reply, "In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel" (Matt 2:5-6). Afterwards, Herod sends them on their way, and they go and find Jesus in Bethlehem, just as the scribes and priests had indicated was prophesied (Matt 2:7-11; ref 2:1). So, we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

Matthew was loosely quoting from Micah 5:2, but can Jesus really be the fulfillment? In context, the "ruler" (Micah 5:2) is supposed to "deliver (Israel) from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders" (Micah 5:6). Now, when did Jesus ever fight against and defeat Assyria? Not only was Jesus not depicted as a warrior in the gospels, but Assyria ceased to exist several centuries before the time in which Jesus allegedly lived! Not only that, but Jesus' kingdom is supposedly "not of this world" (John 18:36), so why would he be concerned about the "land" and "borders" (Micah 5:6) of Israel anyway?

 

Again, some allege that this is a "dual prophecy." Again, though, there is nothing in the context to suggest a dual prophecy. Some also try to get around the warrior aspect of Micah's prophecy by alleging that it refers to Jesus' second coming, when he's supposed to defeat the world. However, as already pointed out, the prophecy deals specifically with Assyria (Micah 5:5-6), which no longer exists to be defeated! Some argue that "Assyria" is meant figuratively. But, once again, there is nothing in the context to support the argument. Not only that, but there is nothing in Micah's prophecy to suggest two separate comings. Also, if the person being prophesied about was supposed to be identifiable by fulfilling the prophecy, then how can he be identified as the one when he has not fulfilled the whole prophecy?

 

These Christian arguments are forced onto the text, not gleaned from it, and are nothing more than attempts to get Micah's prophecy to fit with Matthew. As such, it looks like Matthew has once again taken a prophecy out of context in order to fabricate a fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Out of Egypt

 

Matthew goes on to describe an angel telling Joseph to protect Jesus from being killed by Herod by taking the family from Bethlehem to Egypt (Matt 2:13), where they stay "until the death of Herod" (Matt 2:15). Then we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son" (Matt 2:15). Here we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy, but is it really?

 

Take a look at what Matthew was actually quoting from: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (Hosea 11:1). The alleged prophecy is not even about a future event at all, but a past event! Hosea is talking about the early years (relatively speaking) of "Israel," personifying the nation as a "child" and a "son," and referring to their release from bondage to Egypt (depicted in Exodus 12)! It has nothing whatsoever to do with a single individual hundreds of years later, but an entire nation hundreds of years before!

 

Not only that, but the context presents a huge problem if Jesus is to be identified with this passage about Israel. It goes on to say, "They sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images" (Hosea 11:2). Did Jesus turn away from God and sacrifice to idols?

 

So again, Matthew has taken an Old Testament text out of context in an attempt to make Jesus fulfill prophecy.

 

The Slaughtered Children

 

Matthew continues his story by telling that Herod "sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof" (Matt 2:16). Then we read, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not" (Matt 2:17-18). The use of this prophecy implies that the "children" being "not" is a reference to their deaths, and we have yet another claim of fulfilled prophecy, right?

 

Let's take a look at Jeremiah's context. After making the statement that Matthew quoted (Jeremiah 31:15), it goes on to say, "Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border" (Jer 31:16-17). It goes on to say, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again (from) their captivity" (Jer 31:23).

 

At the time that this was written, the Israelites had supposedly been conquered and many of them taken into exile. When Jeremiah said that Rachel's "children... were not" (Jer 31:15), he was referring to Rachel's descendants being removed from their land. As such, the prophecy in question is referring to what had already happened, not a future event, and clearly indicated that they would return. So, was Jeremiah talking about a slaughter of infants and toddlers hundreds of years later, as Matthew claims? Obviously not.

 

So, we have yet another case of Matthew misusing an Old Testament text by taking it out of context in order to fabricate fulfilled prophecy.

 

The Chosen Servant

 

Later on in Matthew's gospel, we read an account in which "great multitudes followed" Jesus "and he healed them all," telling them that "they should not make him known" (Matt 12:15-16). Then we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust" (Matt 12:17-21). So, here is another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

Let's take a closer look. Matthew quoted Isaiah 42:1-4, but what does the context indicate? Who is the "servant" that Isaiah was referring to? He clearly states in the preceding chapter, "But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and have not cast thee away" (Isaiah 41:8-9). Clearly, then, the "servant" allegedly "chosen" by God is the nation of Israel, the descendants of Abraham, also referred to as Jacob.

 

This is reiterated in the following chapters as well. We read, "Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant: and Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen" (Isaiah 44:1-2). Again, it's clear to see that the nation of Israel, also referred to as Jacob, is the servant ("Jesurun" means "the upright one" and is used as a symbolic name of Israel; also spelled "Jeshurun" and used in Deuteronomy 32:15; 33:5,26).

 

He continues, "Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me" (Isaiah 44:21). In addition, we read, "The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob" (Isaiah 48:20), and, "Thou art my servant, O Israel" (Isaiah 49:3).

 

While Isaiah repeatedly refers to Israel as God's "servant" and "chosen" one, he never once names anyone else as God's "servant"! In light of this, can there be any question at all about whom Isaiah is referring to as God's "servant," the "chosen" one?

 

But, once again, some argue for a "dual prophecy," in which Jesus is the final fulfillment. However, is that really supported by the text? Not only does Isaiah not mention a dual fulfillment, but does the Jesus of the gospels really fit the description of the "servant"? In the very same chapter of Isaiah that Matthew quoted we read, "Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. Who is blind, but my servant? Or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? Who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant? Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not" (Isaiah 42:18-20). Was the Jesus of the gospels blind and deaf to the word of God? Did the Jesus of the gospels pay no attention to his Master?

 

Clearly, then, Jesus was not a fulfillment of the "servant" in Isaiah. The "servant" was Israel, allegedly chosen by God, but rebellious against his ways. The servant that Isaiah claimed that God would make "a light to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6) is the nation of Israel, as is seen throughout Isaiah.

 

So, once again, we have a case of Matthew misusing the Old Testament to fabricate a claim that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

 

Ever Hearing, Never Understanding

 

Matthew says that the disciples asked Jesus why he taught in parables (Matt 13:10). In Jesus' reply he said, "Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand" (Matt 13:13). Then Jesus claims, "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them" (Matt 13:14-15). Here we have yet another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

Matthew was loosely quoting Isaiah, but the original was stated as a command, and not a prophecy of a future event. Isaiah said that he was told, "Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eye, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed" (Isaiah 6:9-10).

 

Isaiah continued by saying that he inquired, "Lord, how long?" (Isaiah 6:11), to which he was answered, "Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, And the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land. But yet in it shall be a tenth" (Isaiah 6:11-13). Clearly, this describes Israel being taken captive in exile. It was "until" that time that Isaiah was supposed to issue the command.

 

As such, we have a command for Isaiah to issue until the time of the exile, and not a prophecy of people during Jesus' time! Again, we see that Matthew has taken Isaiah out of context in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy in his story of Jesus. This time is even more serious, though, in that Jesus was speaking in Matthew's text, and therefore the error is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

 

Beyond that, the concept of trying to keep people from converting is quite the opposite of what evangelical Christianity claims! Indeed, it essentially contradicts the teaching that God wants "all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4).

 

Uttering Parables

 

After Matthew mentions that Jesus taught the crowd with parables (Matt 13:34), we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world'" (Matt 13:35). Once again, let's take a closer look at this claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

The quotation comes from a psalm of Asaph, which starts out, "Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old" (Psalm 78:1-2). Here Asaph claims that he himself is going to utter parables, and those parables are exactly what we find in the remainder of this very psalm, as Asaph recounts story after story about Israel's past (Psalm 78:5-72).

 

Asaph's psalm does not give any prophetic prediction whatsoever. From the context, then, it is quite clear that the comment in question (Psalm 78:2) was not a prophecy of Jesus telling parables!

 

So, once again, we have Matthew misusing an Old Testament text to make it appear as though Jesus fulfilled prophecy. It should also be pointed out that even if this had been a prophecy, the fact is that any mere mortal human could self-fulfill a prophecy about telling stories simply by telling stories, and thus there would be no miracle involved at all. But, of course, it wasn't really even a prophecy.

 

Shared Bread

 

John's gospel says that Jesus identified Judas as the one who would betray him (John 13:18-30) by giving him a "sop" (piece of bread) that he "dipped" (John 13:26). One of Jesus' statements during this scene was, "But that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me" (John 13:18). Again, let's take a closer look.

 

Jesus was quoting a psalm that said, "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me" (Psalm 41:9). Throughout this psalm, David is describing the actions of his enemies, God's protection from them, and his own pleading for God's mercy. David is most certainly talking about himself and one of his own friends!

 

Again, though, some argue for a "dual fulfillment," saying that David was talking about himself and prophesying a future event with Jesus and Judas. However, there is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest any such second meaning. Beyond that, taking this passage as a prophecy of Jesus is extremely problematic, because it also says, "I said, Lord, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee" (Psalm 41:4). When did the Jesus of the gospels sin against God?

 

So, we clearly have yet another Old Testament passage taken out of context and misused in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy. And, again, this one is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

 

Hating Jesus Without Reason

 

John's gospel says that Jesus told his disciples that they would be hated by the world, just as he was allegedly hated by the world (John 15:18-24). Then Jesus claimed, "But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause" (John 15:25). So here we have another claim of fulfillment.

 

The quotation is of a phrase used in two psalms of David. In one we read, "They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4). David is talking about himself in this psalm and gives no indication whatsoever of any future person meant to fulfill these words. Beyond that, if this is to be taken as referring to Jesus, then the very next statement is extremely problematic. It says, "O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee" (Psalm 69:5). Was Jesus guilty of foolishness and sin?

 

The other psalm using the phrase John quoted says, "Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause" (Psalm 35:19). Again, David is talking about himself, and once again the context proves problematic if this is to be taken as a reference to Jesus. The psalm starts out by saying, "Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me. Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for mine help. Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation" (Psalm 35:1-3). When did Jesus pray for God to fight against those pursuing his life? When did he pray for God to draw the spear against them?

 

It goes on to say, "Rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions" (Psalm 35:17). For clarity of meaning, here is a different translation: "Rescue my life from their ravages, my precious life from these lions" (NIV). There is no mention whatsoever of submitting to a plan of God to be put to death, there is pleading for his life. How is this consistent with the Jesus of the gospels?

 

So, once again, we have Old Testament passages taken out of context and misconstrued as prophecies of Jesus.

 

No Bones Broken

 

John's gospel tells us that the solders broke the legs of those being crucified, but that since Jesus was already dead, they did not break his legs (John 19:31-33). John claims, "For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken" (John 19:36). Yet again, we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

The quotation is from a psalm of David. Once again, though, the context does not support the claim that it was a prophecy of Jesus. We read, "Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all. He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken" (Psalm 34:19-20). Did God deliver Jesus from the trouble of the cross or expect him to endure it? David is making a generalized statement about "the righteous" (see also verse 17) and implies that in life they will be protected, but Jesus was allegedly already dead, so what would be the point of protecting his bones then? Also, there is no hint whatsoever in David's words that he was envisioning a sacrifice of Jesus hundreds of years later in which no legs were broken.

 

So, again, we have a statement taken out of context and misused to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus.

 

The One They Have Pierced

 

John says that when the soldiers didn't break Jesus' bones, they pierced him with a spear instead (John 19:33-34). John then claims that this was in fulfillment (John 19:36) of what "another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced'" (John 19:37). One more time, let's take a closer look.

 

This quotation comes from Zechariah, where we read, "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn" (Zechariah 12:10). This is allegedly a quote from God (Zech 12:1), and is therefore a text cited by many Christians to claim that Jesus is God. But is this really talking about Jesus?

 

In context, Zechariah's prophecy is about God destroying Jerusalem's enemies (Zech 12:1ff). He specifically states, "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zech 12:9). Did the Jesus of the gospels do that when the people looked upon his piercing? Of course not!

 

Once again, we see that John has taken a passage out of context in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy in Jesus.

 

Called a Nazarene

 

Another interesting one is the claim that Jesus "came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23). One more time, let's take a closer look.

 

The prophecy in question is found in... uh, it's found at... well, um, nowhere! The statement, "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23) does not exist anywhere in the Old Testament, nor is there any statement even resembling it! This "prophecy" is pulled out of thin air!

 

Of course, Christians have a couple ways of trying to get around this problem. One suggestion is that this is a loose reference to the Nazarite vow, in which "either man or woman shall separate themselves" and make "a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the Lord" (Numbers 6:2). However, this in not a prediction at all, nor is it referring to where someone is from (i.e., Nazareth). "Nazarite" and "Nazarene" are simply two different things. In addition, the Nazarite text says, "He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink" (Numbers 6:3), but Jesus is said to have drunk wine (Luke 7:33-34). Thus, the Nazarite vow suggestion is simply taking the text completely out of context in order to try to make the Nazarene prophecy exist.

 

Another suggestion is that the prophecy is found in the words, "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots" (Isaiah 11:1). The argument is that the Hebrew term for "branch" is "netser," which is similar to the Aramaic word for "Nazarene." But this argument also has problems. First, the words are not actually the same, just similar, and Isaiah does not say, "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23). Second, it is not talking about location at all, but is using the imagery of a rod and a branch growing out of a stem and roots. Third, the text says that this branch "shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked" (Isaiah 11:4), which Jesus of Nazareth did not do. Fourth, the New Testament authors used the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, which uses the Greek word "anthos" instead of the Hebrew word "netser" for the "branch" (Isaiah 11:1). So, once again we have a text being taken out of context in order try to make the Nazarene prophecy exist.

 

As such, we are left with a New Testament claim of a fulfillment of a prophecy that doesn't exist in the Old Testament! It is yet another fabricated prophetic fulfillment.

 

Conclusion from the Fabricated Prophetic Fulfillments

 

I have just demonstrated several misuses of the Old Testament by New Testament authors fabricating prophetic fulfillments, and there are more.

 

How can the claim that Jesus is proven by fulfilled prophecy be believed when over and over and over again we see that the original writings have been misused and distorted? It sounds more and more like the gospel writers were making up a story, since they were misconstruing texts from the Hebrew Scriptures in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments in the key character. After all, if they had a true story worth believing, then why would they need to resort to such underhanded tactics?

 

Christians assert that it was a miracle for Jesus to fulfill so many prophecies about him and that nobody could fulfill them all by chance, but that is nonsense. One could easily hand-pick statements from a vast work like the Old Testament, take them out of context and apply them to any number of individuals that the original authors never had in mind. It would be even easier if the character, or at least his story, is made up to begin with. In other words, all of these alleged prophetic fulfillments prove nothing about Jesus!

 

Christians often vilify Jews for rejecting their "Messiah." Indeed, I used to wonder how the Jews couldn't see that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, but now that I have studied it closer I can understand why. The simple fact is that the Jews who take their religion seriously can clearly see how Christians have butchered the Hebrew Scriptures! They are not convinced that Jesus fulfilled prophecy because it is a simple fact that he didn't, as has been demonstrated.

[★ Citsonga ★]

JayL, my last two posts contain excerpts from a much larger piece that I wrote detailing many of the reasons (mostly straight from the Bible) why I no longer believe the Christian myth. These excerpts should be enough to demonstrate that your assertion that we haven't really looked into this stuff is ridiculous.

 

The problems with the Bible that led me away from the faith I once held dear started showing up while I studied the Bible to grow closer to God, and I know that there are others on this board with a similar experience.

 

For clarification, I did not in any way, shape or form set out to disprove Christianity. It's just that the more I studied it, the more the blinders came off and I realized that I had been duped by a myth. The facts surrounding the stories of Jesus prove that they have been concocted. That was an unwelcome fact when I started to realize it, but it is a fact nonetheless.

[bdp]

If you look deep enough into resurrection issue, you would be in danger of becoming a believer.

 

 

 

Nope, no danger whatsoever - EX-C, remember? I've looked a lot deeper into it than you seem to imagine you have and I know it's pure fiction.

 

The caveat 'j' gave himself is 'convincingly' and he'll never let himself be convinced. Have a happy delusion 'j'.

[bdp]

And not only are 'the gospels' contradictory, there were, by their account, NO eyewitnesses to any 'resurrection.' When the women came to the tomb the stone was already moved and the tomb empty. Even at that, in Gary Habermas' legendary 'minimal facts' surveys over a quarter of his stacked deck of 'experts' reject the empty tomb - these are New Testament scholars who think the 'resurrection' is a crock. So we're being asked to disprove something that had never been universally accepted, even by those most inclined to, as a fact.'