Refuting Evidence For Bible's Truth--Help!

[Lilith666]

Can anyone come up with something to counter these? I need biblical scholars, though anyone else's opinion is good too.

The messiah would be born in Bethlehem: "but thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel..." -Micah 5:2. X claimed to be king and was born in Bethlehem.

The messiah would come from the tribe of Judah: "The scepter shall not

depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet...and unto him

shall the gathering of the people be." -Genesis 49:10. X was descended from King David, who was from the tribe of Judah.

Babylon's kingdom would be permanently overthrown: "And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms...shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from

generation to generation; the Arabs shall not pitch tents there; neither shall

the shepherds make their fold there." -Isaiah 13:19-20. Today, Babylon is

deserted.

The Xians want to know how we can explain the disciples' changed lives

after X's ascension into heaven. A lot of them traveled around converting

people, and many of these evangelicals were tortured/executed for it. Peter

was crucified upside-down because he felt he was unworthy of dying like X

did. Saul, better known as the apostle Paul, went from a zealous Xian-

killing Judaist to a devout Xian who founded churches and was imprisoned

for his faith. He was eventually martyred.

If the disciples were lying about X's resurrection, why would they die to support him?

Here are more prophecies: X would be exchanged for thirty pieces of silver: "And I said to them, 'If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear.'

So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver." -Zechariah 11:12. Judas, a disciple, agreed to identify X for the executioners if they paid him that price.

The Jews would survive Babylonian rule and return home: "And now

therefore thus says the Lord, the god of Israel, concerning this city...'It shall

be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the

famine, and by the pestilence; behold, I will gather them out of all

countries, where I have driven them in anger...and I will bring them again to

this place, and I will cause them to dwell in safety." -Jeremiah 32:36-37. In

609 BCE, Babylon seized the last of the Assyrian empire, which had

included Judah. They forced Jews into exile in 605 BCE. Jews began returning to their homeland in 539 BCE, after the Babylonian empire was toppled.

I am starting to wonder if, in some perverse way, the Bible does have a supernatural origin. Thoughts?

[mcdaddy]

The NT was written to fulfill prophecy.

 

So of course it "fulfills prophecy".

 

BUT

 

almost none of the "prophecies" are actual PROPHECIES.

[Legion]

Lilith, I'm trying to find "wise" words here for you.

 

I believe the potential for gaining more understandings, is not somewhere over there in space and time. I think it is here. now

 

all around us, within us, through us

---------------------------------------------------------

 

Hmm... I may need to think about this further. I can't find the words.

[oddbird1963]

Yes! McDaddy makes a great point. Try to read the "prophesies" in their context. Most of them, you will realize, were in no way talking about a coming Messiah. And the "fulfillment," where the prophesy is quoted in the NT more than likely is quoting the prophesy out of context - or using an inferior translation of the OT.

 

Look up your specific concerns at infidels.org or at the Skeptics Annotated Bible I'll bet you'll find all the answers you need withing a few minutes.

[hereticzero]

First of all, according to Josephus whom Christians love to quote, the Jews did not exist until about 500 years before the common era, that is when they came out of Babylon with their mystery religion, Judaism. Then they wrote their holy books, or OT as Christians refer to the Torah. The prophecies were written perhaps hundreds of years AFTER the fact, which doesn't make them a prophecy at all. The OT is mythology, no historical proof of Moses exists outside the religious writings. Exodus did not happen, there is no historical evidence to support the story of Exodus. The OT prophet Jeremiah claims god never gave the law to Moses, especially the law of sacrifice for the atonement of sin, a sin offering was added by the priests and scribes. Jeremiah said as much in claiming the scribes were liars, the prophets were liars, and the priests ruled by their own means. He also claimed truth was no where to be found in the land. One of their own prophets disclaimed the religion and sacrificial offerings.

 

The NT is written on the assumption that the OT is true and without error, talking snakes and all, according to many Christians. Therefore, the NT is written in support of a mythological record known as the Old Testament. It's based on fiction. Because god never gave the law of sacrifice to the Jews but was invented by their priests, the law of sacrifice is also fiction as was the tale of Moses receiving such law. This makes the whole concept of Jesus being a 'perfect sacrifice™' a moot point. What Christianity teaches is the gospel according to the self-appointed false apostle Paul. That is why the church is referred to as the Pauline Church. Paul claimed to be a Pharisee and describes his feeling of Christ as a sacrifice for our sins. It doesn't wash because of the prophet Jeremiah's warning. Paul also claimed to have had a vision of Jesus and could not tell the same story the same way three different times in the book of Acts. He lied and because he could not keep up with his own lies, he told the story differently every time. He also excluded the part of being blind from his story twice. Jesus' own disciples were perhaps retarded. They lived with Jesus who taught them his gospel for over three years and yet when he had died and resurrected only three days later, no one could identify him on sight when he appeared to everyone. They had to be told who he was. If that ain't special, what is? Christians wrote their holy books many years after everyone who knew Jesus were dead which did not leave any witnesses to testify against the church's writings, which are copies of copies, no original documents exist anywhere. Christianity, and their writings, including prophecies are fiction and only makes sense to you if you ignore all other sources that counter such claims. It is traditional teachings the church uses today, not historically accurate evidence in support of their claims.

[Guest Valk0010]

I am no biblical scholar, but i have a tiny thought question for you to consider. It put to rest these issues in my mind.

 

What would happen if the bible was proven historically reliable? What would that prove in the face of mounting non historical evidence and just some common sense understanding of natural phenomena that shows there is no good reason to believe in a theistic god?

 

All it proves is that okay, we have some very natural events, some that are very minute, that were accurately recorded. And we have some stuff that, they claim to have seen happen, but we can only know for sure that they believed that the stuff they experienced was divine and operated on that assumption.

 

Really this kind of argument is putting the cart before the horse. If there is no god, there is no reason, even if there is gospel reliability or even possibly what one might call innerrancy to belive that the miracles happened. You only just have a really bizarre situation, nothing more. It would make the bible no different the various accounts you here of ghosts and aliens and crap.

 

Also don't confuse historical reliability with inerrancy. Those are too wildly different things.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Can anyone come up with something to counter these? I need biblical scholars.

The messiah would be born in Bethlehem: "but thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel..." -Micah 5:2. X claimed to be king and was born in Bethlehem.

The messiah would come from the tribe of Judah: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet...and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." -Genesis 49:10. X was descended from King David, who was from the tribe of Judah.

Babylon's kingdom would be permanently overthrown: "And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms...shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation; the Arabs shall not pitch tents there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there." -Isaiah 13:19-20. Today, Babylon is deserted.

The Xians want to know how we can explain the disciples' changed lives after X's ascension into heaven. A lot of them traveled around converting people, and many of these evangelicals were tortured/executed for it. Peter was crucified upside-down because he felt he was unworthy of dying like X did. Saul, better known as the apostle Paul, went from a zealous Xian-killing Judaist to a devout Xian who founded churches and was imprisoned for his faith. He was eventually martyred.

If the disciples were lying about X's resurrection, why would they die to support him?

Here are more prophecies: X would be exchanged for thirty pieces of silver: "And I said to them, 'If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear.' So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver

." -Zechariah 11:12. Judas, a disciple, agreed to identify X for the executioners if they paid him that price.

The Jews would survive Babylonian rule and return home: "And now therefore thus says the Lord, the god of Israel, concerning this city...'It shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence; behold, I will gather them out of all countries, where I have driven them in anger...and I will bring them again to this place, and I will cause them to dwell in safety." -Jeremiah 32:36-37. In 609 BCE, Babylon seized the last of the Assyrian empire, which had included Judah. They forced Jews into exile in 605 BCE. Jews began returning to their homeland in 539 BCE, after the Babylonian empie was toppled.

Thoughts?

Hi Lilith, just a couple of thoughts:

 

1. the genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke conflict. A standard Christian answer is to say that Luke is giving the genealogy through Mary, but it doesn't say that.

2. Judas and the thirty pieces of silver opens up another contradiction. Compare the accounts in Matthew and in the beginning of Acts. There is no way to reconcile what these two books say happened to the money: Matthew says the priests took it after Judas threw it down and they bought the field Akeldama, while Acts says that Judas bought the field himself with the money.

3. There are some notable unfulfilled OT prophecies. For example, I think it's Jeremiah who says that the city of Tyre shall be totally destroyed. This never happened. Ditto with Damascus.

 

There are very useful websites about these, as people have mentioned above.

 

4. The behavior of the apostles and Paul is known mostly from the NT itself, so it is circular to appeal to their behavior as proof that the NT is historically accurate. Because Acts makes errors that can be traced to misunderstandings of Josephus (Richard Carrier has written on this - Google him and check out his stuff), it must be later. In fact we have no reason to believe that any of the Gospels predates the supposed martyrdom of Peter and Paul. If some parts of the NT were written around the end of the century, there was enough time for legends to have developed. This phenomenon can be seen in modern religious movements, where legends and miracles stories can arise and spread with amazing speed among people who believe but were not eyewitnesses (though they may in their zeal even say they were, or say they know someone who was.... ). Finally, in many religious movements there are people, incl. leaders, who are willing to die for their beliefs. Paul and others probably were convinced that they had had visions of the risen Jesus.

[Guest Valk0010]

Not directly related, but it does show that people are willing to believe very strange shit without evidence in a very concise way.

 

http://www.skepdic.com/blondlot.html

[Lilith666]

Yes! McDaddy makes a great point. Try to read the "prophesies" in their context. Most of them, you will realize, were in no way talking about a coming Messiah. And the "fulfillment," where the prophesy is quoted in the NT more than likely is quoting the prophesy out of context - or using an inferior translation of the OT.

Look up your specific concerns at infidels.org or at the Skeptics Annotated Bible I'll bet you'll find all the answers you need withing a few minutes.

 

Thanks. I read the Bible a lot, but I'm far from an actual scholar. I need the extra help.

[mcdaddy]

Yes! McDaddy makes a great point. Try to read the "prophesies" in their context. Most of them, you will realize, were in no way talking about a coming Messiah. And the "fulfillment," where the prophesy is quoted in the NT more than likely is quoting the prophesy out of context - or using an inferior translation of the OT.

Look up your specific concerns at infidels.org or at the Skeptics Annotated Bible I'll bet you'll find all the answers you need withing a few minutes.

 

Thanks. I read the Bible a lot, but I'm far from an actual scholar. I need the extra help.

 

Stop reading the bible, and start reading books on critical biblical scholarship. Bart Ehrman is a favorite, an while I disagree on some points, he def knows what he's talking about.

[Lilith666]

First of all, according to Josephus whom Christians love to quote, the Jews did not exist until about 500 years before the common era, that is when they came out of Babylon with their mystery religion, Judaism. Then they wrote their holy books, or OT as Christians refer to the Torah. The prophecies were written perhaps hundreds of years AFTER the fact, which

doesn't make them a prophecy at all. The OT is mythology, no historical

proof of Moses exists outside the religious writings. Exodus did not happen,

there is no historical evidence to support the story of Exodus. The OT

prophet Jeremiah claims god never gave the law to Moses, especially the

law of sacrifice for the atonement of sin, a sin offering was added by the

priests and scribes. Jeremiah said as much in claiming the scribes were

liars, the prophets were liars, and the priests ruled by their own means. He

also claimed truth was no where to be found in the land. One of their own

prophets disclaimed the religion and sacrificial offerings.

 

The NT is written on the assumption that the OT is true and without error, talking snakes and all, according to many Christians. Therefore, the NT is

written in support of a mythological record known as the Old Testament.

It's based on fiction. Because god never gave the law of sacrifice to the

Jews but was invented by their priests, the law of sacrifice is also fiction as

was the tale of Moses receiving such law. This makes the whole concept

of Jesus being a 'perfect sacrifice' a moot point. What Christianity

teaches is the gospel according to the self-appointed false apostle Paul.

That is why the church is referred to as the Pauline Church. Paul claimed

to be a Pharisee and describes his feeling of Christ as a sacrifice for our

sins. It doesn't wash because of the prophet Jeremiah's warning. Paul also

claimed to have had a vision of Jesus and could not tell the same story the

same way three different times in the book of Acts. He lied and because

he could not keep up with his own lies, he told the story differently every

time. He also excluded the part of being blind from his story twice. Jesus'

own disciples were perhaps retarded. They lived with Jesus who taught

them his gospel for over three years and yet when he had died and

resurrected only three days later, no one could identify him on sight when

he appeared to everyone. They had to be told who he was. If that ain't

special, what is? Christians wrote their holy books many years after

everyone who knew Jesus were dead which did not leave any witnesses

to testify against the church's writings, which are copies of copies, no

original documents exist anywhere. Christianity, and their writings, including

prophecies are fiction and only makes sense to you if you ignore all other

sources that counter such claims. It is traditional teachings the church uses

today, not historically accurate evidence in support of their claims.

 

How do you know that the OT prophecies were written after their claims came true? There are prophecies about X, and if the Jews came 500 years before the common era, they prophesied about X before he was around.

[mcdaddy]

First of all, according to Josephus whom Christians love to quote, the Jews did not exist until about 500 years before the common era, that is when they came out of Babylon with their mystery religion, Judaism. Then they wrote their holy books, or OT as Christians refer to the Torah. The prophecies were written perhaps hundreds of years AFTER the fact, which

doesn't make them a prophecy at all. The OT is mythology, no historical

proof of Moses exists outside the religious writings. Exodus did not happen,

there is no historical evidence to support the story of Exodus. The OT

prophet Jeremiah claims god never gave the law to Moses, especially the

law of sacrifice for the atonement of sin, a sin offering was added by the

priests and scribes. Jeremiah said as much in claiming the scribes were

liars, the prophets were liars, and the priests ruled by their own means. He

also claimed truth was no where to be found in the land. One of their own

prophets disclaimed the religion and sacrificial offerings.

 

The NT is written on the assumption that the OT is true and without error, talking snakes and all, according to many Christians. Therefore, the NT is

written in support of a mythological record known as the Old Testament.

It's based on fiction. Because god never gave the law of sacrifice to the

Jews but was invented by their priests, the law of sacrifice is also fiction as

was the tale of Moses receiving such law. This makes the whole concept

of Jesus being a 'perfect sacrifice' a moot point. What Christianity

teaches is the gospel according to the self-appointed false apostle Paul.

That is why the church is referred to as the Pauline Church. Paul claimed

to be a Pharisee and describes his feeling of Christ as a sacrifice for our

sins. It doesn't wash because of the prophet Jeremiah's warning. Paul also

claimed to have had a vision of Jesus and could not tell the same story the

same way three different times in the book of Acts. He lied and because

he could not keep up with his own lies, he told the story differently every

time. He also excluded the part of being blind from his story twice. Jesus'

own disciples were perhaps retarded. They lived with Jesus who taught

them his gospel for over three years and yet when he had died and

resurrected only three days later, no one could identify him on sight when

he appeared to everyone. They had to be told who he was. If that ain't

special, what is? Christians wrote their holy books many years after

everyone who knew Jesus were dead which did not leave any witnesses

to testify against the church's writings, which are copies of copies, no

original documents exist anywhere. Christianity, and their writings, including

prophecies are fiction and only makes sense to you if you ignore all other

sources that counter such claims. It is traditional teachings the church uses

today, not historically accurate evidence in support of their claims.

 

How do you know that the OT prophecies were written after their claims came true? There are prophecies about X, and if the Jews came 500 years before the common era, they prophesied about X before he was around.

 

Again, none of the prophecies are really prophecies.

 

How many of them say "messiah will do x". Or "messiah will be like Y". Virtually none. There are only maybe a handful of true messianic prophecies...and even those are still somewhat ambiguous. Basically, that he would be from Bethlehem, and usher in an age of prosperity and bring Gentiles into Judaism is more or less it.

 

Did Jesus supposedly do that?

 

Bethlehem- not really. He's "supposedly" from Galilee, they had to come up with (conflicting) stories of these insane scenarios to get him into Bethlehem.

 

Prosperity- hell nah. Not even close. Jews lost their damn temple and got kicked TFO of Jerusalem.

 

Gentile conversions- not to Judaism, which was what was supposed to happen, not (some) Jews to a brand new religion based loosely on the old.

 

See?

 

The other "prophecies" are hardly prophecies.

Example - "virgin birth". That verse in Isaiah is ripped maliciously out of context. Read the whole chapter. its not anything close to talking about anything hundreds of years in the future.

 

Etc etc etc

[Kaiser01]

 

Maybe this will help you, these people are deist so don't mind that but pay attention to what they haft to say.

[hereticzero]

First of all, according to Josephus whom Christians love to quote, the Jews did not exist until about 500 years before the common era, that is when they came out of Babylon with their mystery religion, Judaism. Then they wrote their holy books, or OT as Christians refer to the Torah. The prophecies were written perhaps hundreds of years AFTER the fact, which

doesn't make them a prophecy at all. The OT is mythology, no historical

proof of Moses exists outside the religious writings. Exodus did not happen,

there is no historical evidence to support the story of Exodus. The OT

prophet Jeremiah claims god never gave the law to Moses, especially the

law of sacrifice for the atonement of sin, a sin offering was added by the

priests and scribes. Jeremiah said as much in claiming the scribes were

liars, the prophets were liars, and the priests ruled by their own means. He

also claimed truth was no where to be found in the land. One of their own

prophets disclaimed the religion and sacrificial offerings.

 

The NT is written on the assumption that the OT is true and without error, talking snakes and all, according to many Christians. Therefore, the NT is

written in support of a mythological record known as the Old Testament.

It's based on fiction. Because god never gave the law of sacrifice to the

Jews but was invented by their priests, the law of sacrifice is also fiction as

was the tale of Moses receiving such law. This makes the whole concept

of Jesus being a 'perfect sacrifice™' a moot point. What Christianity

teaches is the gospel according to the self-appointed false apostle Paul.

That is why the church is referred to as the Pauline Church. Paul claimed

to be a Pharisee and describes his feeling of Christ as a sacrifice for our

sins. It doesn't wash because of the prophet Jeremiah's warning. Paul also

claimed to have had a vision of Jesus and could not tell the same story the

same way three different times in the book of Acts. He lied and because

he could not keep up with his own lies, he told the story differently every

time. He also excluded the part of being blind from his story twice. Jesus'

own disciples were perhaps retarded. They lived with Jesus who taught

them his gospel for over three years and yet when he had died and

resurrected only three days later, no one could identify him on sight when

he appeared to everyone. They had to be told who he was. If that ain't

special, what is? Christians wrote their holy books many years after

everyone who knew Jesus were dead which did not leave any witnesses

to testify against the church's writings, which are copies of copies, no

original documents exist anywhere. Christianity, and their writings, including

prophecies are fiction and only makes sense to you if you ignore all other

sources that counter such claims. It is traditional teachings the church uses

today, not historically accurate evidence in support of their claims.

 

How do you know that the OT prophecies were written after their claims came true? There are prophecies about X, and if the Jews came 500 years before the common era, they prophesied about X before he was around.

I know the prophets lied because the religion's own prophet Jeremiah claims they lied. If the religion's own prophets cannot believe what is written, why should I? Prophets never wrote anything that came true. Christians make a big deal about OT prophecy pointing to Jesus because they want legitimacy for their religion. OT prophecy does not indidcate Jesus is the messiah. Christians could not even get his name correct, if you use prophecy as an example. The OT was written after the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Is the talking snake story true or not? Moses supposedly wrote it after hearing it from god's own mouth. True or not true? If it is not true then the prophecy of Jesus saving us from the curse we received because of the talking snake is also false. What prophecy came true? None. The Jews came from Babylon and lay claim to Jerusalem. They did not exist until they showed up from Babylon. They were Hebrews and then came the Jews with their religion. A Hebrew ain't a Jew unless he is of the Jewish religion. Therefore, their story and prophesy is unconfirmed and as invalid as their claim on Jerusalem. The Jews said, 'we're here because we got this land from god and it's ours.' Did the Hebrew make that claim? No. Only the Jews. They wrote their holy book of stories to legitimize their claim on what is now Palestine. If god was with them, where is he now? And Babylon is NOT deserted. Babylon is called today 'Iraq.'

[centauri]

Can anyone come up with something to counter these? I need biblical scholars, though anyone else's opinion is good too.

The messiah would be born in Bethlehem: "but thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel..." -Micah 5:2. X claimed to be king and was born in Bethlehem.

The messiah would come from the tribe of Judah: "The scepter shall not

depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet...and unto him

shall the gathering of the people be." -Genesis 49:10. X was descended from King David, who was from the tribe of Judah.

But what messiah actually came out of Bethlehem?

Jesus wasn't the messiah, wasn't biologically paternally descended from David, and never sat on the throne or ruled.

 

The Xians want to know how we can explain the disciples' changed lives

after X's ascension into heaven. A lot of them traveled around converting

people, and many of these evangelicals were tortured/executed for it.

How do Christians explain the changed lives of people that came into contact with Joseph Smith?

Mormons have also been persecuted.

 

Peter was crucified upside-down because he felt he was unworthy of dying like X

did. Saul, better known as the apostle Paul, went from a zealous Xian-

killing Judaist to a devout Xian who founded churches and was imprisoned

for his faith. He was eventually martyred.

All according to church traditions.

 

If the disciples were lying about X's resurrection, why would they die to support him?

There is nothing in the New Testament that says the apostles all died to support Jesus.

Stephen and James are the only ones mentioned as being killed.

The deaths of the apostles is according to church tradition.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Can anyone come up with something to counter these? I need biblical scholars, though anyone else's opinion is good too.

The messiah would be born in Bethlehem: "but thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel..." -Micah 5:2. X claimed to be king and was born in Bethlehem.

Bethlehem Ephratah refered to a tribe, not the city Bethlehem which didn't exist at the time to be mentioned. As for where Jesus was born, we don't know, if he existed at all.

 

The messiah would come from the tribe of Judah: "The scepter shall not

depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet...and unto him

shall the gathering of the people be." -Genesis 49:10. X was descended from King David, who was from the tribe of Judah.

Clearly they're talking about an earthy ruler, not a "spiritual messiah for the afterlife". Also, Jesus was said to have been born from a virgin, and not the biological son of Joseph, of whom was the one descended from King David, according to the NT. Is Jesus descended from King David or was he born of virgin birth, have them take their pick, one or the other?

 

Babylon's kingdom would be permanently overthrown: "And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms...shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from

generation to generation; the Arabs shall not pitch tents there; neither shall

the shepherds make their fold there." -Isaiah 13:19-20. Today, Babylon is

deserted.

The interesting thing about this, is that its an interesting coincidence. The Bible also says that Jericho and Damascus will be utterly destroyed and never rebuilt. Both are still thriving cities, what's more, one is still a capitol city in that region (i.e. Damascus). Furthermore, while no longer called "Babylon" (guess the name being called 'city of the gods' was too much for the arabs, unsuprisingly) is now referred to as Hillah, which moved over towards where the river moved. Also, what's hinted at is its utter destruction and the place being desolate, which never happened. The site was slowly abandoned after the arab conquest of persia, and replaced by farms even later on. Before there were farms, shepherds grazed like with everywhere else in that area. What a beacon of biblical evidence!

 

The Xians want to know how we can explain the disciples' changed lives

after X's ascension into heaven. A lot of them traveled around converting

people, and many of these evangelicals were tortured/executed for it. Peter

was crucified upside-down because he felt he was unworthy of dying like X

did. Saul, better known as the apostle Paul, went from a zealous Xian-

killing Judaist to a devout Xian who founded churches and was imprisoned

for his faith. He was eventually martyred.

If the disciples were lying about X's resurrection, why would they die to support him?

How do we really know that happened?

 

Here are more prophecies: X would be exchanged for thirty pieces of silver: "And I said to them, 'If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear.'

So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver." -Zechariah 11:12. Judas, a disciple, agreed to identify X for the executioners if they paid him that price.

The Jews would survive Babylonian rule and return home: "And now

therefore thus says the Lord, the god of Israel, concerning this city...'It shall

be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the

famine, and by the pestilence; behold, I will gather them out of all

countries, where I have driven them in anger...and I will bring them again to

this place, and I will cause them to dwell in safety." -Jeremiah 32:36-37. In

609 BCE, Babylon seized the last of the Assyrian empire, which had

included Judah. They forced Jews into exile in 605 BCE. Jews began returning to their homeland in 539 BCE, after the Babylonian empire was toppled.

I am starting to wonder if, in some perverse way, the Bible does have a supernatural origin. Thoughts?

The prophets were written at the earliest in the persian era, postdiction isn't prediction. And how would it prove, if it were true, supernatural origin? If they were still in mesopotamia, they could always runaway.

[Blue elephant]

The Xians want to know how we can explain the disciples' changed lives

after X's ascension into heaven. A lot of them traveled around converting

people, and many of these evangelicals were tortured/executed for it. Peter

was crucified upside-down because he felt he was unworthy of dying like X

did. Saul, better known as the apostle Paul, went from a zealous Xian-

killing Judaist to a devout Xian who founded churches and was imprisoned

for his faith. He was eventually martyred.

If the disciples were lying about X's resurrection, why would they die to support him?

 

This argument is very easy to answer sensibly. The fact that someone believes in a religion with all their heart and is prepared to die for their beliefs does not make it true. Perhaps you should remind your Christian friends about 19 men who were prepared to fly planes in to buildings to defend their faith.

[Guest Valk0010]

The Xians want to know how we can explain the disciples' changed lives

after X's ascension into heaven. A lot of them traveled around converting

people, and many of these evangelicals were tortured/executed for it. Peter

was crucified upside-down because he felt he was unworthy of dying like X

did. Saul, better known as the apostle Paul, went from a zealous Xian-

killing Judaist to a devout Xian who founded churches and was imprisoned

for his faith. He was eventually martyred.

If the disciples were lying about X's resurrection, why would they die to support him?

 

This argument is very easy to answer sensibly. The fact that someone believes in a religion with all their heart and is prepared to die for their beliefs does not make it true. Perhaps you should remind your Christian friends about 19 men who were prepared to fly planes in to buildings to defend their faith.

They would of course say, there is a difference between believing in something and experience something. Though it seems like that is putting the cart before the horse.

[Akheia]

Archaeology has demonstrated that Jericho was completely abandoned long before the Old Testament had it being destroyed by the Jews. Nor did that whole 40 years in the desert thing really happen. And that's all before we start to wonder if the Adam-and-Eve myth could possibly be true (if natural selection is true, there's no damned way). There. We've just disproven three of the Old Testament's major myths. How many others will we debunk if we dig into it (hint: ALL OF THEM)?

 

Now let's go talk about the New Testament. We can knock the "worldwide census" off the list, because that never happened. There was also no "massacre of the innocents." And no independent records of startling stars in the sky. Hm, there's half the damn fable disproven right there. But it gets worse. No contemporary author even once talks about Jesus. There's no record of him, his birth, or anything about his parents. Not one. As others have pointed out, most of what we "know" about his life and the early church is mere hearsay and tradition--all of it promulgated by men who had a lot riding on how persuasive they could be. Josephus mentions Jesus as an afterthought, as a secondhand mention that there were some folks called Christians who said Jesus had started things up for them (Josephus was quite a bit after Jesus' supposed death, so he's hardly an eyewitness), but he also mentions a few other guys named Jesus who claimed to be messiahs--so which one is our lil buddy? The Romans, who were of course active in Jerusalem, didn't write one damned word about this rock-star messiah who was riling everybody up and doing miracles right and left and entering the city as a king. The educated Jews who were there also didn't mention anything about him, though they were just as careful with records as the Romans were. Oh, and there's no contemporary notes WHATSOEVER about this supposed trial and execution of his. Not from the Jews, who kept records of this sort of thing, or from the Romans, who were positively anal-retentive about it. We have volumes of letters and court proceedings from both Jews and Romans, but NOTHING about Jesus. The one thing that really stands out about Jesus' supposed life and death is the total, deafening silence you hear from every educated letter-writer and historian in the Empire. It irked a few later historians who were trying to track down some facts about their supposed messiah. John Loftus even makes a good case for even Paul and the early evangelists not believing that Jesus had risen from the grave bodily! To them, it didn't matter. But to modern fundies, it matters enormously.

 

 

In addition to the other worthy links, POCM is a great place to start educating yourself about the Bible's many, many, many flaws--and it features a lot of mystery religions active around the 1st century that look startlingly like Christianity but just didn't get the support to take off the way Christianity did. I was pretty shocked by the parallels it drew between Jesus and some other god-men floating around the religious marketplace of the time.

 

Bonus link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible

 

It's also something to remember that Jews didn't actually think that the Bible was to be taken literally or its stories considered the unvarnished truth. The idea of fundamentalism started up in the last century or so as a response to a perceived "lukewarmness" to the church body. It fit in well with that uniquely American distrust of subtlety or shades of gray, as well as with the American distrust of education and discernment. Fundamentalism is a quick, easy answer to a world that feels increasingly non-Christian. Here's the painful (to them anyway!) truth. The Bible isn't a history book, or even a biography. It's a book of myths and fables that people want desperately to believe is totally true because the world is a scary place and science is slowly edging out their religion.

 

One last thing. DO NOT let them shift the burden of proof. It is upon THEM to prove their fairy tales to YOU, not for YOU to refute their fairy tales. I'm writing all this for your benefit, so you know for your own self why their fairy tale is false and not to be trusted. But don't let them worm out of proving their ideas true using peer-reviewed, scientifically-responsible sources. It sounds like you may be allowing them to do that, so just be aware of it, okay?

[Suzy]

The Jews themselves don't think Jesus fills OT prophecies. On the contrary:

 

Jews do not believe that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, or the Messiah prophesied in Jewish scriptures. He is seen as a "false messiah," meaning someone who claimed (or whose followers claimed for him) the mantle of the Messiah but who ultimately did not meet the requirements laid out in Jewish beliefs. According to Jewish scripture and belief, the true Messiah (pronounced "moshiach" in Hebrew) must meet the following requirements. He must:

• Be an observant Jewish man descended from the house of King David
  
• Be an ordinary human being (as opposed to the Son of God)
  
• Bring peace to the world
  
• Gather all Jews back into Israel
  
• Rebuild the ancient Temple in Jerusalem
  
• Unite humanity in the worship of the Jewish God and Torah observance
  

Because Jesus did not meet these requirements, from the Jewish perspective he was not the Messiah.

 

http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Jewish-View-Of-Jesus.htm

 

 

More: http://www.hanefesh.com/Jewish-Christian_Talk.htm

 

1. MESSIAH AS PROPHET

Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

 

4. MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS

Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

5. VIRGIN BIRTH

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

6. CRUCIFIXION

The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."

7. SUFFERING SERVANT

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant." In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun. Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus. From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."

 

For more follow the link.

[Suzy]

The Xians want to know how we can explain the disciples' changed lives

after X's ascension into heaven. A lot of them traveled around converting

people, and many of these evangelicals were tortured/executed for it. Peter

was crucified upside-down because he felt he was unworthy of dying like X

did. Saul, better known as the apostle Paul, went from a zealous Xian-

killing Judaist to a devout Xian who founded churches and was imprisoned

for his faith. He was eventually martyred.

If the disciples were lying about X's resurrection, why would they die to support him?

 

This argument is very easy to answer sensibly. The fact that someone believes in a religion with all their heart and is prepared to die for their beliefs does not make it true. Perhaps you should remind your Christian friends about 19 men who were prepared to fly planes in to buildings to defend their faith.

 

Besides, there is no really proof these things indeed happened with the disciples. The stories of Peter and Paul's deaths are based simply on "tradition", ie. they could be made-up stories.

 

There is not even proof that Jesus existed. Even if there was a person around whom the myth was built up, of course the agenda of the NT writers was to "prove" he fulfilled OT "prophecies". So they twisted a couple of OT verses and called them "prophecies" and then made the Jesus story fit. Don't forget that gospels were written long decades after Jesus supposedly lived. Plenty of time to create myths, twist facts - about the OT as well as about Jesus' life.

[Guest Valk0010]

I am no biblical scholar, but i have a tiny thought question for you to consider. It put to rest these issues in my mind.

 

What would happen if the bible was proven historically reliable? What would that prove in the face of mounting non historical evidence and just some common sense understanding of natural phenomena that shows there is no good reason to believe in a theistic god?

 

All it proves is that okay, we have some very natural events, some that are very minute, that were accurately recorded. And we have some stuff that, they claim to have seen happen, but we can only know for sure that they believed that the stuff they experienced was divine and operated on that assumption.

 

Really this kind of argument is putting the cart before the horse. If there is no god, there is no reason, even if there is gospel reliability or even possibly what one might call innerrancy to belive that the miracles happened. You only just have a really bizarre situation, nothing more. It would make the bible no different the various accounts you here of ghosts and aliens and crap.

 

Also don't confuse historical reliability with inerrancy. Those are too wildly different things.

I want to add another thing or possibly correct something, because i am afraid what i said here might not made a whole lot of sense.

 

Innerrancy is very easy to disprove. There is for example no reason to believe moses wrote the first five books of the bible The exodus makes no sense on face value. The gospels are annoymous. Various prophecies the gospels say that are furfilled by jesus, are actually ripped out of context. See Innerrancy is a different thing then reliability. Once inerrancy is disproved all you have left is historical reliability. What your battling is people who are trying to prove innerrancy. Though a perfectly written book is only a perfectly written book if you find totally perfectly valid reasons to not believe in a theistic god that our outside of historical kinds of things. It also doesn't automatically prove the christian god because a god could potentially act outside of what the bible says. For example, who is to say if your a christian that god isn't just trying to fool you and you will burn for believing in say any religion. You don't know that if all you got is a supposedly inerrant book. God could be a maltheist and be lying to us, and atheists will be the only ones in heaven as a joke. See where i am getting at? Arguments for innerrancy put the cart before the horse. They have yet to prove the horse so they can't use the cart even if the cart exists.

 

If a text is historically reliable(which you will find people like William Lane Craig trying to argue so as to sound like he ain't giving a sermon), then all it is, that is historically reliable. It doesn't mean that we have to say anything other then, the disciples believed that he rose from the dead or david believed he talked to God or Jesus did miracles. Its a nonsequiter to go from only saying, that we have a accurate accounting of how their situations played out and what kinds of decisions they made to saying that there conclusions derived from and the cause of there experiences are supernatural in origin or proof of same. If there is no god you have to take some sort of natural answer, even up to saying, we don't know why they believed what they believed but we just know they did.

 

If someone is baiting you, tell them its shift of the burdeon of proof and that they need to prove that we live in a Christian world before they start talking about historical stuff, because until they prove its a christian world there is no reason to not take a naturalistic answer to the biblical miracles. If your just dealing with this stuff for the first time, its more or less a red herring.

 

Hopefully that made more sense.

[pratt]

Let me try in refuting the prophecies part,,,,

 

if jesus did not born in bethelem or he was born in egypt, the NT will not use it to claim jesus MUST BE born in bethelem at all and stressed that OUT of Egypt thingy and forget about Bethelem.

 

if jesus died and resurrected in a week, they will not use Jonah/fish as fulfilling a prophecy but uses god's 7 day creation.

 

if jesus says "vanity vanity all is vanity" at the cross, he also fulfills the prophecy somewhere, unless he says "OH FUCK", but then again the NT writers will not record OH FUCK inside.

 

when the prophecies are not fulfilled, someone will say that it will fulfill in the 2nd coming?

[Guest Valk0010]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxh0pC6CT7Q

[Suzy]

 

when the prophecies are not fulfilled, someone will say that it will fulfill in the 2nd coming?

 

Yeah, that's exactly what they say. Jesus actually did NOT fulfill any of the major OT requirements of the Messiah: he did not bring world peace, he did not make the whole world observe the Torah, he did not gather all Jews back to Israel etc. etc. So how did early Christians try to get around that fact? That's right, they invented the concept of the second coming and said all those will be fulfilled when Jesus comes for the second time. Problem is, there is no concept of a second coming of the Messiah in the OT. That is Christian invention just to save face. But the NT writers believed and taught that the second coming was imminent as they wrote their stories, that it would happen in the life of that generation. Well, 2000 years passed and nothing. Failed prophecy again.

 

To me the Christian invention of the second coming is proof that they knew full well that Jesus did not fullfil anything.