The Incredible odds of fulfilled bible prophecy

[MRC_Hans]

...

[MRC_Hans]

Ahhh, I'm sure these have already been refuted (haven't yet read past the quoted post), but I just love these (having been there before), so please allow me:

Originally Posted by DOC

Well here are 3 out of the 13 he listed. He also said about 2000 out of 2500 have been fulfilled so far.

You can't prove the reliability of a claim of 2,000 by listing three.

Quote:

(1) Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's *snip*Jesus' crucifixion occurred only a few years later, and about four decades later, in 70 A.D. came the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

And

Quote:

(2) In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.

The problem with both of these is that the only recording we have of this was provably written after the facts. They may, of course, build on earlier scripture, but it is VERY difficult to imagine that a person authoring a religious manifest would NOT adjust or interpret any prophecies in his sources to match the events he knew to be facts. AND here I am even granting you the assumption that the fulfillments ARE facts.

Quote:

(3) In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used—just as predicted—for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).

I especially love this one. Apart from the problems listed above (written after the fact) ask yourself this: How did the writers know how much Judas was payed (assuming that the event happened at all)?

... Judas himself went out and killed himself, talking to nobody, do they don't have it from him.

... Those that paid him hardly made the sum public. They would be extremely happy that he silenced himself, avoiding unpleasant publicity.

... And since nobody recorded how he was payed, how can we know how the money was used?

Finally, the prophecy does not talk about the "potter's field" or the use of same. The prophet says "give it to the potter".

I'll leave it to others to shred the probability ratios, which are by default unsustainable, since it is impossible to know the alternative scenarios.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually Luke (the physician), who many say was a first rate historian and was highly detailed about events and places, wrote the reason that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem was because Caesar Augustus sent out a decree that the world should be taxed. And since Joseph was from the house of David, which was from Bethlehem. Joseph and his family went to Bethlehem.

You are aware that this story (the census) has actually been sought verified by external sources (the Romans were quite meticulous in their documentation) and failed?

Quote:

And if the stories were made up you'd think that the four gospel writers would correlate their stories exactly. But the fact that their are some minor inconsistencies in their stories shows that they were written independent of each other.

So because the stories have provable faults and inconsitencies, they must be true??? Think again.

Quote:

Also if someone is dishonest enough to make stuff up could they really come up with the incredible wisdom and ethics of Christ that even Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin basically said was the finest that ever existed and as Franklin said will probably ever exist.

Yes. However, it is not a case of dishonesty. The making up of legends has been acceptabel procedure throughout most of history. It is only in today's scientific world that we consider it dishonest to spice up your message with made-up stuff.

Hans

[DOC]

Originally Posted by Abe_the_Man

Herod died 10 years before Quirinius became governor of Syria and thus would not have even heard of Jesus' birth never mind tried to have him killed.

Which Herod, there was 4 of them. All 3 of King Herods sons could technically be called Herod and all of them were given a part of the area to rule.

And I already showed you why the fact about Cyrinius of Syria is quite debatable

Also why don't you bring in your sources and post them after the assertions that deal with that specific source. Rather than machine gunning a lot of facts and plopping down all your sources together like you did before.

[DOC]

And to Abe the Man, I don't believe you responded to this post that pointed out that several of your statements were not true.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...29#post3338029

And if you respond please put your sources immediately after the facts they deal with rather than congregating all your sources together at the end which is kind of loosey goosey.

And if you refer to an Augustus Caesar or to a Herod please be specific which one.

[Ocelot]

Originally Posted by DOC

Which Herod, there was 4 of them. All 3 of King Herods sons could technically be called Herod and all of them were given a part of the area to rule.

You're quite right, after the death of Herod the Great, he was suceeded by his three sons who ruled as tetrarchs rather than kings.

Could Mathew have been refering to one of his sons: Herod Archelaus, Herod Antipas or Herod Philip II?

No he couldn't. Firstly because he repeatedly calls him Herod the King

Matthew 2:1-3

Quote:

1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. 3When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Herod's sons we not Kings

More explicitly, after the person Matthew calls Herod the King orders the death of all the newborns, Jesus and his family hide in Egypt until Herod is dead. Matthew relates the death of Herod.

Matthew 2:21-22

Quote:

21And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. 22But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

So we have Herod Achelaus explicitly mentioned as the Ruler of part of his father Herod's prior kingdom.
In short Matthew is unequivocal about which Herod he is refering to. As such Doc, would you care to answer Abe's question again.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by Ocelot

Luke 2:2

Note using the Greeek spelling of Cyrenius rather than Quirinius doesn't change the date.

Apology accepted

The spelling of Cyrenius had nothing to do with my statement.

[Ocelot]

Originally Posted by DOC

The spelling of Cyrenius had nothing to do with my statement.

Really?

In response to

Originally Posted by Abe_the_Man

So now we see some more problems. Though the bible is correct in naming Quirinius as governor of Syria. He did perform a census it was not covering the entire Roman Empire as the bible claims. It covered only the provinces of Syria and Iudaea. It did NOT include the province of Galilee where Joseph and Mary came from and so not only were they exempt from taking part in the census they would not have been permitted to take part even if they wanted to (that would be like me as a Canadian trying to take part in a New York city Census).

You said:

Quote:

Nowhere in the King James Version does it claim this.

The King James version of Luke 2:1-2 clearly states

Quote:

1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. 2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

And goes on to relate the story of Mary and Joseph travelling to Nazareth.

I hope my confusion is understandable. You've been clear on what your statment didn't mean. Please elaborate on what it did mean.

[DOC]

Quote by Doc

Also if someone is dishonest enough to make stuff up could they really come up with the incredible wisdom and ethics of Christ that even Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin basically said was the finest that ever existed and as Franklin said will probably ever exist.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Yes.

I strongly disagree, As Jesus said (paraphrasing) "Good fruit can't come from a rotten tree"

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

However, it is not a case of dishonesty. The making up of legends has been acceptabel procedure throughout most of history.

Name a Legend (beside your opinion that Christianity is a legend) that has this effect on U.S. Presidents:

# President Religion
1 George Washington Episcopalian
2 John Adams Congregationalist (raised); Unitarian
3 Thomas Jefferson raised Episcopalian; later no specific denomination
held Christian, Deist, Unitarian beliefs
4 James Madison Episcopalian (deist?)
5 James Monroe Episcopalian (deist?)
6 John Quincy Adams Unitarian
7 Andrew Jackson Presbyterian
8 Martin Van Buren Dutch Reformed
9 William Henry Harrison Episcopalian
10 John Tyler Episcopalian (deist)
11 James Knox Polk Presbyterian; Methodist
12 Zachary Taylor Episcopalian
13 Millard Fillmore Unitarian
14 Franklin Pierce Episcopalian
15 James Buchanan Presbyterian
16 Abraham Lincoln raised Baptist; later no specific denomination (deist)
17 Andrew Johnson Christian (no specific denomination)
18 Ulysses S Grant Presbyterian; Methodist
19 Rutherford B. Hayes Presbyterian; Methodist (?)
20 James A. Garfield Disciples of Christ
21 Chester A. Arthur Episcopalian
22 Grover Cleveland Presbyterian
23 Benjamin Harrison Presbyterian
24 Grover Cleveland Presbyterian
25 William McKinley Methodist
26 Theodore Roosevelt Dutch Reformed; Episcopalian
27 William Howard Taft Unitarian
28 Woodrow Wilson Presbyterian
29 Warren G. Harding Baptist
30 Calvin Coolidge Congregationalist
31 Herbert Hoover Quaker
32 Franklin Delano Roosevelt Episcopalian
33 Harry S. Truman Southern Baptist
34 Dwight D. Eisenhower River Brethren; Jehovah's Witnesses; Presbyterian
35 John F. Kennedy Catholic
36 Lyndon B. Johnson Disciples of Christ
37 Richard M. Nixon Quaker
38 Gerald Ford Episcopalian
39 Jimmy Carter Baptist (former Southern Baptist)
40 Ronald Reagan Disciples of Christ; Presbyterian
41 George H. W. Bush Episcopalian
42 William Jefferson Clinton Baptist
43 George W. Bush Methodist (former Episcopalian)

From the article: Religious Affiliation of U.S. Presidents

www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Roman bureaucrat: Listen up, everyone, we're going to have a census...does anyone here have a famous ancestor...? You, there, what's your name? Joseph? And your famous ancestor was....David? Never heard of him. Where's he from....? Bethlehem? No, no, I don't need any documentation. We Romans are pretty laid back, we don't care about procedure. Just go to...what was it? Bethlehem? To be counted. And take any pregnant women you might be planning to marry later.

That's almost Pythonesque

[Nogbad]

Name a list of Indian rulers, how many were Hindu?

Name a list of Iranian rulers, how many were Muslims?

Name a list of Tibetan rulers, how many were Budhists?

Does that confirm the validity of those religions?

Cultural norms are not verification in their own right but merely a confirmation of the hegemony that such beliefs exert over any particular society at any particular time. As that hegemony wanes adherence is no longer an essential pre-requisite to the reins of power or office. In Europe religion is no longer a major issue. Some leaders are adherents and some have no religious beliefs at all. As a rule, people expect politicians to follow their hearts on such matters privately.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by DOC

Name a Legend that has this effect on U.S. Presidents.

Gee DOC, In Muslim cultures the leaders all seem to be Muslim. In Hindu cultures the leaders all seem to be Hindu. In Buddhist cultures... Well, you get the point. Or do you?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC

Also if someone is dishonest enough to make stuff up could they really come up with the incredible wisdom and ethics of Christ that even Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin basically said was the finest that ever existed and as Franklin said will probably ever exist.

Yes. Easily.

Originally Posted by DOC

I strongly disagree

you are wrong.

Originally Posted by DOC

As Jesus said (paraphrasing) "Good fruit can't come from a rotten tree"

Yes, but leaves and fruit both come from a good tree.

Do you eat the leaves? Why not? Perhaps because it's not fit for consumption, but serves another purpose.
As with people and there ideas.

Not all that comes out of person's mouth is fruit. We must sort through to find the ripe peices and discard the refuse. Otherwise we are simply knee deep in a compost pile.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by DOC

Name a Legend (beside your opinion that Christianity is a legend) that has this effect on U.S. Presidents:

Freedom, Liberty, and Justice?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Abe_the_Man

Judas couldn't possibly have been paid in 'peices of silver' as the Seleucid coinage was in use for 141 years and 'weighed peices' hadn't been used in the region for almost 300.

While in no way agreeing with the OP, I don't think this particular objection can stand. While 'piece' may have a particular meaning to numismatists, it is used as a synonym for coin in everyday modern English. I don't know if that was the case at the time of the KJV translation, but I also don't expect that the translators would have had detailed knowledge of Seleucid currency. It may well be the original text had the correct term, or perhaps it had changed by the time of the KJV; remember we're dealing with several layers of languages.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by joobz

Do you eat the leaves? Why not? Perhaps because it's not fit for consumption, but serves another purpose.
As with people and there ideas.

Not all that comes out of person's mouth is fruit. We must sort through to find the ripe peices and discard the refuse. Otherwise we are simply knee deep in a compost pile.

All right, let's kill this analogy before it gets even more out of control!

[H3LL]

I'm on ignore...aren't I...



Well ... Never mind ...

DOC - You lie - Then lie again - Then link to other liars - Get shown that you are a liar and the people you link to are liars - Then bring the same lies up in different threads and lie again.

You also wrap the lies up in logical fallacies ad-nauseum, shuffle the goalposts as frequently as possible and claim you didn't say things you did and throw in the odd subject change for fun.

Add failure to answer repeated requests to answer direct questions and on the rare occasions that you actually address a question produce more lies, old lies or logical fallacies as an answer.

Are lies and liars appropriate for a Christian?

They certainly aren't appropriate for science.

Congratulations.


Did I miss anything?

.

[Abe_the_Man]

Originally Posted by Ocelot

You're quite right, after the death of Herod the Great, he was suceeded by his three sons who ruled as tetrarchs rather than kings.

Could Mathew have been refering to one of his sons: Herod Archelaus, Herod Antipas or Herod Philip II?

No he couldn't. Firstly because he repeatedly calls him Herod the King

Matthew 2:1-3




Herod's sons we not Kings

More explicitly, after the person Matthew calls Herod the King orders the death of all the newborns, Jesus and his family hide in Egypt until Herod is dead. Matthew relates the death of Herod.

Matthew 2:21-22



So we have Herod Achelaus explicitly mentioned as the Ruler of part of his father Herod's prior kingdom.
In short Matthew is unequivocal about which Herod he is refering to. As such Doc, would you care to answer Abe's question again.

Herod the Tetrach (Antipas I believe) was the one who had John the baptist killed. He was the son of Herod the great. I will find the scripture and links when I have more time.

Doc I will respond to your posts and properly site the links for you when I am able to.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

All right, let's kill this analogy before it gets even more out of control!

Are you saying you want to tear it out at the roots?
If you do that, who knows what you'll unearth.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by joobz

Are you saying you want to tear it out at the roots?
If you do that, who knows what you'll unearth.

Niflheim.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by joobz

Are you saying you want to tear it out at the roots?
If you do that, who knows what you'll unearth.

I just think we should subdue it before it runs amuck amongst the townfolk.

[Tricky]

Damn, I must have fallen asleep. When did this train change from the Fundementalism express to the Jingoism Express.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Damn, I must have fallen asleep. When did this train change from the Fundementalism express to the Jingoism Express.

There is a train
of thought i'm on
and Jingo is it's name-o
J I N G O
J I N G O
J I N G O
and Jingo is it's name-o

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by DOC

Name a Legend (beside your opinion that Christianity is a legend) that has this effect on U.S. Presidents:

What effect? Have a website ascribe a nominal religion to them ?

There is no evidence that they were affected by (a supposed) God. While some may have thought god told them to launch invasions and the like, Deists certainly would claim not to be so affected.

So we have a legend that some presidents believed may have possibly somehow guided them.

At least Santa Claus gave them real presents.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by joobz

There is a train
of thought i'm on
and Jingo is it's name-o
J I N G O
J I N G O
J I N G O
and Jingo is it's name-o

LOL. I didn't think anyone else knew that song.

[Abe_the_Man]

Herod the Great was definitely the one refered to in the nativity story. He was the only "King" Herod ever to exist.


-King Herod the Great, King over all Israel (37-4 BC)
-Herod Antipas, "Tetrarch" of Galilee and Perea (4 BC-AD 39)
-Herod Philip, "Tetrarch" of Northeastern Regions (4 BC-AD 34; over Iturea, Trachonitus, Gaulanitis, Auranitis, and Batanea)
-Herod Archelaus, "Ethnarch" of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (4 BC-AD 6)

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/...y-RomanEra.htm

So you see there were 4 Herods but only 1 King Herod. Of the other three there were 2 Tetrarchs and 1 Ethnarch.

Quote:

Mathew 2:1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
3When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
4And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

*King James Version, bolding mine

It specifically refers to Herod the King not Tetrarch or Ethnarch. Now don't try and tell me it's the same thing as the bible differentiates between kings and tetrachs.

Quote:

Mathew 14:1At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus,
2And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.
3For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife.

Quote:

Luke 3:1Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

Quote:

Luke 3:19But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done,

Quote:

Luke 9:7Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him: and he was perplexed, because that it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead;

Quote:

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

*KJV, bolding mine


As for everything else I promise I will respond but I will be unable to untill at least tommorow evening as I'm going out of town.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

Also if someone is dishonest enough to make stuff up could they really come up with the incredible wisdom and ethics of Christ that even Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin basically said was the finest that ever existed and as Franklin said will probably ever exist.

Originally Posted by joobz

Yes. Easily.

So when Thomas Jefferson says this about the sayings of Jesus he took the time to cut out of the Bible:

"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen"

or this about Jesus' teachings:

"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus".

Or when Ben Franklin says this:

"The moral and religious system which Jesus Christ transmitted to us is the best the world has ever seen, or can see."


--your basically saying that it would have been "quite easy" for liars and charlatans and conspirators to come up with even though people like Plato and Aristotle (who Jefferson read) really couldn't come up with such pure teachings.

And I assume you also believe that the "many" deep spiritual highly original parables that Jesus spoke would have also been "quite easy" for liars and charlatans and conspirators to come up with.

And to those who believe the voluminous teachings of Christ (that Jefferson and Franklin basically said were the greatest ever) were just made up, whom may I ask do you believe did it.

[Hokulele]

Argue from incredulity much?

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by DOC

So when Thomas Jefferson says this about the sayings of Jesus he took the time to cut out of the Bible:

"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen"

or this about Jesus' teachings:

"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus".

Or when Ben Franklin says this:

"The moral and religious system which Jesus Christ transmitted to us is the best the world has ever seen, or can see."

--your basically saying that it would have been "quite easy" for liars and charlatans and conspirators to come up with

joobz can answer more specifically, but I will point out that neither Jefferson nor Franklin were familiar with the eastern myths, particularly Buddhism.

Originally Posted by DOC

even though people like Plato and Aristotle (who Jefferson read) really couldn't come up with such pure teachings.

They were philosophers, not religionists.

Originally Posted by DOC

And I assume you also believe that the "many" deep spiritual highly original parables that Jesus spoke would have also been "quite easy" for liars and charlatans and conspirators to come up with.

Which ones, specifically, do you think could only originate with Jesus?

Originally Posted by DOC

And to those who believe the voluminous teachings of Christ

Voluminous? Hardly. Volumes are filled with commentary on the alleged sayings of Jesus. What is actually attributed to him would fill a slim pamphlet.

Originally Posted by DOC

(that Jefferson and Franklin basically said were the greatest ever) were just made up, whom may I ask do you believe did it.

You may have heard of a few folks name Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Not that those are their actual names, mind, but you get the drift.

By the way, DOC: Earlier I pointed out how you referenced a source which used "census" and not "taxation" even though you repeatedly criticized poseters here for doing the same thing. Care to comment on that?

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by DOC

And to those who believe the voluminous teachings of Christ (that Jefferson and Franklin basically said were the greatest ever) were just made up, whom may I ask do you believe did it.

I'm not American, so I don't have the same profound respect for Jefferson, Franklin and American presidents as you have. This seems to lead me to think for myself and judge such texts on their own basis rather than on the thoughts of someone else.

I've read your teachings of Christ. Several times. And in my opinion, there are such works that have moved me more.

It's a shame you discard Plato as easily as you do. I've been really moved by his texts, especially Phaedrus and Symposium. I still remember where I was and what I was feeling the first time I read Phaedrus. A stunning work.

Hĺvamĺl, the teachings of Odin are awesome. Now that's a guide to practical living!

Have you ever read the Dhammapada? Now that's also a great work, the essence of Buddhism as the Buddha taught it, and written long before Buddhists thought they had to spice up the stories with supernatural elements.

I'm sorry, I can't invoke the names of famous people from your country that have read these works. But that's okay in my book. Works like these should stand on their own, not gain merit by who liked them and not.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC

So when Thomas Jefferson says this about the sayings of Jesus he took the time to cut out of the Bible:

--your basically saying that it would have been "quite easy" for liars and charlatans and conspirators to come up with even though people like Plato and Aristotle (who Jefferson read) really couldn't come up with such pure teachings.

And I assume you also believe that the "many" deep spiritual highly original parables that Jesus spoke would have also been "quite easy" for liars and charlatans and conspirators to come up with.

And to those who believe the voluminous teachings of Christ (that Jefferson and Franklin basically said were the greatest ever) were just made up, whom may I ask do you believe did it.

You've successfully created several strawmen in attempts to make a point. I need to address each seperately to explain exactly why you are wrong on so many levels.

1.) People do have to be liars/charlatans/conspiritors to exaggerate a story.
Do you claim that people who say George washington chopped down the cherry tree are charlatans?

2.)Even if their was an evil cabal that invented christianity, there is no reason to assume that it couldn't have some good basic principles in it.

You are making the assumption that people are either good or evil. this is completely false. You have committed several dishonest acts during our discussion (mainly presenting information you know to be false and therefore lying by proxy).

Even though you do this a lot, I do not believe you to be an evil person. Indeed, I think you are a very good person at heart who wants people to be good and saved, but are willing to commit minor sins for the greater good.

3.) It is false to think that the debate is either Jesus was real or that other people wrote his stories.

I do not doubt (have no reason to doubt) the existance of a Jesus. I'm willing to accept it as fact. I simply find no reason to think him divine. Since you love authorities so much, You'll see that Jefferson agrees with me on that point.

4.) Jesus' teachings were so good, they must have been divine.
Well, in truth, Jesus' teachings weren't the best.
He did a lot. But we know better. Jesus didn't preach against slavery. That alone demonstrates a massive failing in moral teaching.

Further, I would say Jefferson and the founding fathers did something for us that Jesus never did. He protected us from religious domination. It was discovered (due to abuses by the christian church) that religious led government is in complete opposition to human rights.

5.) Your appeal to authority is heresy. the only way you would think thier opinion on subjects would supercede logic and reason is if you think Jefferson and Franklin as perfect individuals who are never wrong (aka perfect). But then, if you believe that you would be violating your belief that only Jesus was perfect, right?

Since It seems that you are rather strongly christian, I assume you do not actually believe Jefferson and Franklin are perfect. As such, Your appeal to their authority is made in bad faith.


So, in summary, to your question:
"Could the story of christ's divinity be completely made up at the same time/by the same people/ who made up his good moral teachings?"

Yes. yes it could have been. Although, I do think jesus was real. Just not divine.

[skeptical]

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually Luke (the physician), who many say was a first rate historian and was highly detailed about events and places, wrote the reason that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem was because Caesar Augustus sent out a decree that the world should be taxed. And since Joseph was from the house of David, which was from Bethlehem. Joseph and his family went to Bethlehem.

By "many" I assume you mean "many Christians". Since we don't even know who the author of Luke was, hard to say how one can say he was a "first rate historian", don't you think? And the census occurred in 6 CE, yet Mark says Jesus was fleeing from Herod, who was dead in 4 BCE. Hmm, that's a bit of a problem.

Originally Posted by DOC

And if the stories were made up you'd think that the four gospel writers would correlate their stories exactly. But the fact that their are some minor inconsistencies in their stories shows that they were written independent of each other.

You don't have any understanding of the growth of mythology. There is a difference between "completely made up" and "core of fact surrounded by layer upon layer of anecdotes and myths". Guess which the gospels are?

Originally Posted by DOC

Also if someone is dishonest enough to make stuff up could they really come up with the incredible wisdom and ethics of Christ that even Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin basically said was the finest that ever existed and as Franklin said will probably ever exist.

Jesus could have been the best ethical teach of all time. (I don't think so, but let's assume so for arguments sake) That has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his supposed miracles and god status.

I've said it before: I'll treat Jesus EXACTLY like any other historical figure. Let's assume all the naturalistic information is correct, and all the supernatural information is wrong. Deal? (don't bother, I know the answer is no)

ETA: Sorry, I was late to the party on the census vs Herod dating, never mind, its been done

[Fitter]

Originally Posted by DOC

And to Abe the Man, I don't believe you responded to this post that pointed out that several of your statements were not true.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...29#post3338029

And if you respond please put your sources immediately after the facts they deal with rather than congregating all your sources together at the end which is kind of loosey goosey.

And if you refer to an Augustus Caesar or to a Herod please be specific which one.

DOC,after reading that post I have to ask "How many people do you have to help you carry your testicles?"

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by DOC

So when Thomas Jefferson says this about the sayings of Jesus he took the time to cut out of the Bible:

"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen"

I am completely fascinated by this post. You believe that a slave-owner and a rapist is well-qualified to judge which system of ethics is the most beautiful. How utterly bizarre.

[Silentknight]

I take it by that silence that DOC isn't going to or can't respond to my previous post. He argued with just about everyone else who replied to him directly, but not me. Is it because my argument was so convincing that he's finally going to change his mind? Is it because his position was unsupported and indefensible in the first place? Or is it because he just has a habit of ignoring anything he doesn't like to hear and runs away to another thread, changes the subject, or repeats the same lies?

Oh I get it. It's because I'm new here and therefore not worth debating with. Well hmph!

[Achán hiNidráne]

Originally Posted by DOC

The spelling of Cyrenius had nothing to do with my statement.

OK, who should we take this issue up with? TV "psychic" scam artist John Edwards or U.S. Senator and presidential candidate John Edward?

[Achán hiNidráne]

Originally Posted by joobz

Even though you do this a lot, I do not believe you to be an evil person. Indeed, I think you are a very good person at heart who wants people to be good and saved, but are willing to commit minor sins for the greater good.

That's where I disagree with you joobz. Assuming he really isn't just a troll, DOC is a lying, theocratic, racist (e.g. his views on Native Americans), homophobe with who thinks everyone must bow down to his imaginary friend or be made to suffer. I have no respect for him, and I never will.

In short: DOC IS evil.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Silentknight

I take it by that silence that DOC isn't going to or can't respond to my previous post. He argued with just about everyone else who replied to him directly, but not me. Is it because my argument was so convincing that he's finally going to change his mind? Is it because his position was unsupported and indefensible in the first place? Or is it because he just has a habit of ignoring anything he doesn't like to hear and runs away to another thread, changes the subject, or repeats the same lies?

Oh I get it. It's because I'm new here and therefore not worth debating with. Well hmph!

Don't take it personally. DOC will ignore posts which contain too much substance. He's already admitted to not enjoying reading complicated arguments. He enjoys short simple concepts.

But I recommend to write for him. I, and I'm sure everyone else, have read your posts and found them insightful.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine

It’s interesting to me how Christians nitpick the extremely minor ways that Jesus was supposed to have fulfilled the prophecies, while completely neglecting the major ways that he failed them.

The messiah of the Old Testament is supposed to accomplish some very concrete things. To wit...



Source

This is to be immediately followed by the Messianic Era. (From the same source...)




Christians, as I understand, explain that all will come to fruition in the second coming. In fact, it’s why a second coming is necessary -- because Jesus didn’t accomplish what he was supposed to the first time around.

But of course, that lack of accomplishment -- by its very definition -- would make him not the Messiah.

Hell, David Ben-Gurion has probably fulfilled more of those.

[Ocelot]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Argue from incredulity much?

That's not possible - he doesn't know how to.