JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 30th January 2013, 04:32 AM   #1001
Rincewind
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,520
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
So then you believe if something is not recorded in history, it couldn't possibly have happened.

ETA And I don't believe Jesus was recorded as saying anything as he was being whipped and forced to carry his cross on the way to the crucifixion spot. (brought to the slaughter as Isaiah states)
DOC,

The first part of your reply bears no relevance to my post. I was comparing two Bible quotes, which you apparently don't believe are history.

John doesn't support your belief about a tight-lipped Jesus, though. As in the quote you supplied.

Shall we call an ambulance? - you seem to have shot yourself in the foot....
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 04:59 AM   #1002
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 27,887
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
DOC,

Isaiah mentions that there was no reply twice.

From your quote here, Pilate asks a question, and gets no reply. Ok, so now we're 1 for 1.

Then Pilate asks a second question, and this time it's answered! So - 1 for 2, therefore, using your "evidence", this prophecy fails.

Next!


So then you believe if something is not recorded in history, it couldn't possibly have happened.

ETA And I don't believe Jesus was recorded as saying anything as he was being whipped and forced to carry his cross on the way to the crucifixion spot. (brought to the slaughter as Isaiah states)


You were the one who provided the quote from John with the bolded bits that you claimed were evidence that Jesus was silent.

No matter how much you twist and turn, there's no way for you to plausibly deny that that very same passage contains a quote of the words he apparently did speak:

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
...That man was silent durring his opression and affliction
Isaiah 53:7 "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."
Jesus did not keep his mouth closed.


JOHN 19:7-11 7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.” 8 Therefore, when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid, 9 and went again into the Praetorium, and said to Jesus, “Where are You from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?” 11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

It beggars belief that you would try to use the above passage to demonstrate that Jesus was silent and when your error is pointed out claim that the prophecy was actually talking about his silence at some other time.

And that that silence is, in fact, not noted - it is simply a lack of evidence that he said anything.

This is easily the most intellectually bankrupt argument you've ever attempted.

It's like being caught with your hand in the cookie jar and not just denying that you were stealing cookies but trying to get away with claiming that the jar doesn't even exist.

A four-year-old could come up with something more convincing.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 05:07 AM   #1003
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 27,887
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
You have your opinion and "Young's literal Translation" has his. People can believe whoever they want.


Does it bother you that nobody at all believes you?

If so, what do you plan to do about it?

If not, why are you here?
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 05:19 AM   #1004
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Moderator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 27,463
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Which post are you talking about that said I read most of the book or is this another invisible ad hom?
Perhaps he was misled by your own words. Could you clarify? When you said:
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
And AK, if I didn't read a good portion of Bart Ehrman's latest book I'd be willing to bet you would have spent the next 5 years not knowing he said "Jesus certainly existed" and said "there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ".
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
I have read a good portion of the book. I've said that before.

what exactly did you mean by "a good portion"?

I realise that accusing you of reading most of a book is an outrageous slur.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

Last edited by zooterkin; 30th January 2013 at 05:20 AM.
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 06:09 AM   #1005
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 24,350
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
People can believe whoever they want.
You've made this hilariously obvious.


Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Can you really not see this?
Only the invisible parts, apparently.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 06:13 AM   #1006
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
The bible says miracles happened. Fulfilled prophecy can be considered a miracle. So if we can give evidence for fulfilled prophecies in the bible that would be evidence that some miracles happened in the bible.

Many people believe Isaiah Chapter 53 prophesied of Jesus:

Isaiah Chapter 53

[SNIP]
10 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;

11 he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,

12 and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.


[SNIP]
Regarding the bolded part above, some skeptics have complained he was only quiet once but here are some more places where Jesus chose not to speak:

Luke 23:9 Then (Herod) questioned (Jesus) in many words; but (Jesus) answered him nothing.

Matthew 27: 12 And when (Jesus) was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

Mark 15 3-5 And the chief priests accused him of many things. 4 And Pilate again asked him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” 5 But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate was amazed.

Edited by kmortis:  Redacted for brevity. The first time was left alone as it was borderline Rule 6 compliant. This time you could have snipped it down.

Last edited by kmortis; 30th January 2013 at 06:41 AM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 06:16 AM   #1007
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...
Posts: 5,842
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Which post are you talking about that said I read most of the book or is this another invisible ad hom?
1. There is no such thing as an "invisible ad hom" What do you think the term means?

2. Do you deny that you said, in one post, that you had read "most" of Did Jesus Exist?, and in another, different post, that you had read "about 30%"? I will be more than glad to "bring the link", but not until you commit.

Did you:
A. read all of Did Jesus Exist?
B. read "most of" Did Jesus Exist?
C. read "30%" of Did Jesus Exist?
D. read some other, as yet not identified, portion of Did Jesus Exist?
E. not really read Did Jesus Exist? at all, other than quote-mining the dust jacket and multiple on-line reviews

I await your answer with interest.
__________________
"Anything that can be accepted into science gets accepted into science." -HighRiser
"And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar
"That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 30th January 2013 at 06:29 AM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 06:32 AM   #1008
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 27,887
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Regarding the bolded part above, some skeptics have complained he was only quiet once but here are some more places where Jesus chose not to speak:

<fairytale>


No, DOC, that is untrue.

The claim, supported by the evidence of a passage that you quoted yourself, was that Jesus spoke at least once and therefore the prophecy fails.


ETA: What a meaningless prophecy/fulfillment pair this is turning out to be. The only way for the prophecy to be considered unfulfilled according to your ad hoc rules would be for Jesus to babble non-stop from the moment of his arrest. As soon as he stops talking for more than the time it takes to draw a breath you'll be all, like, "Aha! Silence! The prophecy is fulfilled!"
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum

Last edited by Akhenaten; 30th January 2013 at 06:44 AM.
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 06:56 AM   #1009
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Do you deny that you said, in one post, that you had read "most" of Did Jesus Exist?, and in another, different post, that you had read "about 30%"? I will be more than glad to "bring the link", but not until you commit.
This is all a waste of time but I looked it up. Here is what I said;

"I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed."
---

I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour and determine what most of the book deals with. In fact I can skim the table of contents in 5 minutes and know what most of the book is about.

Then after that I spent more time reading the book and skipping around to various chapters. During these readings I estimate I covered 30% of the book. From my reading of the book (not from the net) I learned Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed", I learned he said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ, and I learned he said Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah by 32 CE.


The fact that some skeptics are trying to put me down instead of thanking me for giving many this important information tells me some skeptics don't want to learn these things because they go against their beliefs that Jesus was just a myth.

Last edited by DOC; 30th January 2013 at 07:00 AM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 07:07 AM   #1010
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 24,350
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
I learned Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed"
Don't you remember reading, "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence"?

So you agree with Ehrman?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 07:14 AM   #1011
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...
Posts: 5,842
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
This is all a waste of time but I looked it up. Here is what I said;

"I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed."
---
With all due respect, that is one of the things you have said about how much of Did Jesus Exist? you have read.

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour and determine what most of the book deals with.
I'll overlook the visible argument ad hominem (with just a suggestion of poisoning the well), and say that I would not ever claim support from an author based on "skimming" a book. One of the reasons this is an issue is that you claim that Ehrman supports your opinion about Jesus...and you missed, in your "skimming", what Ehrman actually says. Just as you missed Ehrman's treatment od the "messianic" "prophecies" in Isaiah.

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
In fact I can skim the table of contents in 5 minutes and know what most of the book is about.
Again, if I were going to claim that an author supports my opinion, I would not stoop to doing so based on "skimming" the Table of Contents of one book...

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Then after that I spent more time reading the book and skipping around to various chapters. During these readings I estimate I covered 30% of the book. From my reading of the book (not from the net) I learned Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed", I learned he said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ, and I learned he said Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah by 32 CE.
You have made this claim before, and the problems with it have been pointed out to you. Most specifically, you ignore the Ehrman's actual position about the existence of Jesus.

You really ought to consider reading Did Jesus Exist?. It isn't a very long book--re-reading it took me little more than a two-hour flight this weekend.

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
The fact that some skeptics are trying to put me down instead of thanking me for giving many this important information tells me some skeptics don't want to learn these things because they go against their beliefs that Jesus was just a myth.
Two things, DOC:
-What is Ehrman's final word about the existence of Jesus, as a historical figure? In other words, what "important information" does Ehrman actually offer? (hint: it's in the book)
-What is your actual answer to my question of how much of Did Jesus Exist? you, personally, have read?
__________________
"Anything that can be accepted into science gets accepted into science." -HighRiser
"And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar
"That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 30th January 2013 at 07:15 AM. Reason: Fixed formatting issues
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 07:14 AM   #1012
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Don't you remember reading, "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence"?

So you agree with Ehrman?
No, I don't remember reading that, what's the exact quote, page, and from what book. I do remember him saying he was an agnostic leaning to Jesus not being divine.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 07:17 AM   #1013
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 27,887
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
This is all a waste of time but I looked it up. Here is what I said;

"I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed."
---


That's not all you wrote though, now is it?

For example, didn't you also write this?

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Believe me, I read a good portion of the book.


Are you sure you want to continue with this?
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 07:20 AM   #1014
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...
Posts: 5,842
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
No, I don't remember reading that, what's the exact quote, page, and from what book. I do remember him saying he was an agnostic leaning to Jesus not being divine.
Had you read the book, you would recognize Ehrman's central argument. You have been provided the citation several times--if you did not bother to read it then, why would you bother to read it now?

Seriously--consider actually reading Did Jesus Exist?, if for no other reason that to avoid the continued error of claiming that Ehrman supports your opinions about Jesus...

ETA: Out of curiosity, what good would the exact citation do you, as you do not "have access to" a copy of Did Jesus Exist?, and have stated that you do not need to read it?
__________________
"Anything that can be accepted into science gets accepted into science." -HighRiser
"And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar
"That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 30th January 2013 at 07:22 AM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 07:21 AM   #1015
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 13,279
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
This is all a waste of time but I looked it up. Here is what I said;

"I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed."
---

I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour and determine what most of the book deals with. In fact I can skim the table of contents in 5 minutes and know what most of the book is about.

Then after that I spent more time reading the book and skipping around to various chapters. During these readings I estimate I covered 30% of the book. From my reading of the book (not from the net) I learned Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed", I learned he said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ, and I learned he said Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah by 32 CE.


The fact that some skeptics are trying to put me down instead of thanking me for giving many this important information tells me some skeptics don't want to learn these things because they go against their beliefs that Jesus was just a myth.


So*, you surfed some apologist websites, and found some online quotes from the book, and copy / pasted them here. Thanks for confirming.







(Posting under "Rule of So," so my point stands)
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 07:26 AM   #1016
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Moderator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 27,463
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
No, I don't remember reading that, what's the exact quote, page, and from what book. I do remember him saying he was an agnostic leaning to Jesus not being divine.
Why don't you tell us which page it's on? You've had since last June to find it.

Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
It's true, I wear it with pride.

The kindle version of the book has 4 reviews on amazon.co.uk (and no, I'm not going to spend £8.49 to see if I agree with the reviewers who give it an average of 3.2/5)

The most highlighted phrase in the book by kindle users is "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence."

Are you still trumpeting the book as a "win" for your particular brand of Christianity, DOC?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 07:26 AM   #1017
Resume
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 9,695
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour . . .
Now this bible you claim to believe . . . also skimmed?
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 07:32 AM   #1018
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 24,350
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
No, I don't remember reading that, what's the exact quote, page, and from what book. I do remember him saying he was an agnostic leaning to Jesus not being divine.
LOL. I'll let you work out which book. It's in chapter 1. How can you claim to have read 30% if you didn't read chapter 1?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 10:10 AM   #1019
Rincewind
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,520
I note you wrote this:

"I learned he said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ"

Did you ever tell us what these solid reasons are?

Thank you.
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 01:19 PM   #1020
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 11,624
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
You have your opinion and "Young's literal Translation" has his. People can believe whoever they want.
That's the most you can say, because you don't have a clue about how languages work and differ. I bet you don't even know a single language beyond your own - strike that, you haven't even shown proper command of English here.

This is what Robert Young wrote in the preface to his "Literal Translation":
Quote:
If a translation gives a present tense when the original gives a past, or a past when it has a present; a perfect for a future, or a future for a perfect; an a for a the, or a the for an a; an imperative for a subjunctive, or a subjunctive for an imperative; a verb for a noun, or a noun for a verb, it is clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN.
In other words: he translated verb forms in the original in precisely the same tense in English, and in precisely the same mood (that is, described with the necessary auxiliary verbs in English), without regard for the different needs - like the sequence of tenses - in the source and target languages. Anyone with some exposure to foreign languages knows that such an approach is moronic, and doesn't yield a meaningful translation.
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 01:36 PM   #1021
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12,776
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
JOHN 19:7-11 7 ...
This is an amazing bit of ignorance from you, DOC !
John 18:36
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."
JOHN 19:7-11 7
The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.” 8 Therefore, when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid, 9 and went again into the Praetorium, and said to Jesus, “Where are You from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?” 11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”
Matthew 26:39
And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."
Matthew 27:46
"About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Jesus spoke and thus is not the silent, ugly man who lived 500 years before Jesus as the actual text of Isaiah 53 states !

DOC, you ignored the other point that this song is about a "Suffering Servant" that existed in the past, i.e. 500 years before Jesus existed.

Isaiah 53
Quote:
The fourth of the "servant songs" begins at Isaiah 52:13, continuing through 53:12 where it continues the discussion of the suffering servant. There is also a rather clear identification for the "servant" within this song. In the context of its surrounding verses, Isaiah 52 and Isaiah 54, one can deduce that the song refers to the Nation of Israel, rather not to an individual.
We have to wonder abut the Chrsitians selecting to split the verse up so that the past tense that makes it obvious that it does not refer to Jesus is separated from the evaluation of the Servant by the "many nations, kings".
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th January 2013 at 02:00 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 02:17 PM   #1022
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 11,624
Originally Posted by eight bits View Post
I wouldn't think so, surely not until Jesus had ascended. As long as he was on Earth, presumably he could have undone any death. Isn't the negotiable, contingent, reversible and worst-case temporary character of bodily death pretty much what that religion is about?
Good point, but to what extent? AFAIK, normal humans are not supposed to resurrect from death, except all at once at the End Times when Jesus is going to judge them all.

But I'd like to raise another point. Acts is, in fact, the sequel to Luke's gospel. Luke never mentions anything about Judas after his betrayal: no remorse, no throwing the 30 pieces into the temple like Matthew does. He only comes back to Judas' fate in this Acts 1:16-20 passage. Where does it say when Judas actually died? It could as well have been after Ascension in Luke's version.

Originally Posted by eight bits View Post
Anyway, even if we accept that Peter is first in the pecking order, it doesn't follow that he has any power not specifically delegated to him. The Eastern Orthodox, for example, acknowledge the primacy of Peter and his successors (like Ben16), but deny their supremacy.
So who has? Nobody has specifically been given such power by Jesus. But the description in Acts of this choosing a new Twelfth disciple doesn't preclude that they were at the time an anarcho-syndicalist commune and Peter happened to be the executive officer of the week. Or, Peter is simply tabling a motion to appoint a new disciple and the motion apparently carries.

Originally Posted by eight bits View Post
It really is an eye-opener, isn't it? There must have been some crisis when people realized that Jesus wasn't coming back any time soon, when the last of the earliest leaders died. The party line needed updating; throwing Peter under the bus was one way to do it. Or so it seems.
In this context, it's apt that DOC has decided to dig up that quote about "this generation shall not pass".

But I don't see how this passage solves the problem that Jesus did not come back during their lifetime - because he didn't come back. Moreover, I don't see how it helps that the author pretends to be John the disciple (or more precisely, "the disciple Jesus loves")?
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 02:23 PM   #1023
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12,776
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Regarding the bolded part above, some skeptics have complained he was only quiet once but here are some more places where Jesus chose not to speak:
Regarding the bolded part:
10 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth;
11 he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
12 and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
This is a statement that the servant did not open their mouth when they were "oppressed and afflicted" and when they were "led like a lamb to the slaughter".

Jesus opened his mouth when he was "oppressed and afflicted" and was "led like a lamb to the slaughter" as you quoted yourself and as stated in several verses:
  • John 18:36
  • John 19:7-11 7
  • Matthew 26:39
  • Matthew 27:46
Several skeptics have pointed the simple fact that the servant in Isaiah did not open his mouth while the New testament states that Jesus did open his mouth. Thus Jesus is not the servant.

From Jewish Isaiah 53, a couple of evaluations of the song w.r.t Jesus being the servant (PDFs):
ISAIAH 53 PART 1- PDF by Rabbi Moshe Shulman.
The “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 53 by Penina Taylor.
The latter is a verse by verse analysis that shows that Jesus could not be the servant, e.g. Isaiah 53:10 explicitly states that the servant will see his physical offspring (not figurative children - these are 2 different words in Hebrew). Jesus had no children.
ETA the conclusion is worth quoting:
Quote:
Isaiah 52 speaks about the suffering of the Jewish people throughout history and their ultimate redemption.
Isaiah 54 speaks about the suffering of the Jewish people throughout history and their ultimate redemption.
As it turns out, Isaiah 53 is the same story. The Jewish people are despised, rejected, and persecuted. Then, they are exalted, redeemed, lifted up. Since this is a theme that runs consistently throughout the book of Isaiah, especially chapters 40 through the end, there is no reason to believe that chapter 53 has suddenly shifted gears and is talking about something entirely different. The conclusion is clear: the servant of Isaiah 53 is Israel.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th January 2013 at 02:33 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 02:52 PM   #1024
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 13,279
As I don't have the heart to go to the other thread or threads, wasn't "pierced" for his transgressions another problem in translation from the Greek that was sort of retro-fitted?
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 04:35 PM   #1025
Akuma Tennou
Thinker
 
Akuma Tennou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Regarding the bolded part above, some skeptics have complained he was only quiet once but here are some more places where Jesus chose not to speak: <snip>
I'm not sure about this, if someone can confirm it, but I think the repetition in Isaiah about the silence is a poetic way of saying never. The whole OT is filled with such repetitions emphases, like the double-donkey-lulz. So the problem is not that jesus talked once but that he talked at all.

Originally Posted by Akuma Tennou View Post
It should have been enough. Maybe he only read 30% of the bolded part. Reading 30% of a ToC = reading most of a book. I think I'm getting the DOC's logic thing.
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour and determine what most of the book deals with. In fact I can skim the table of contents in 5 minutes and know what most of the book is about.
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
We have a support group. If you find yourself understanding more of it than you're comfortable with, drop me a PM.

D'oh, I'm coming at once!
__________________
"Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species" − E. O. Wilson
Akuma Tennou is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 06:18 PM   #1026
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
 
Krikkiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
This is all a waste of time but I looked it up. Here is what I said;

"I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed."
---

I don't know about you but I can skim a book in a half hour and determine what most of the book deals with. In fact I can skim the table of contents in 5 minutes and know what most of the book is about.

Then after that I spent more time reading the book and skipping around to various chapters. During these readings I estimate I covered 30% of the book. From my reading of the book (not from the net) I learned Ehrman said "Jesus certainly existed", I learned he said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Christ, and I learned he said Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah by 32 CE.


The fact that some skeptics are trying to put me down instead of thanking me for giving many this important information tells me some skeptics don't want to learn these things because they go against their beliefs that Jesus was just a myth.


Based on the above post and previous posts, I have serious doubts as to whether you ever actually fully read anything let alone the texts that you quote.

Now, you might not think that's a problem in itself - maybe it's just a side issue for you that detracts from your argument? In which case this might help:

"Don't read a history book as if you were reading a novel for light pleasure reading."

http://www.bowdoin.edu/writing-guides/
__________________
"Even among men lacking all distinction he inevitably stood out as a man lacking more distinction than all the rest, and people who met him were always impressed by how unimpressive he was."
Krikkiter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2013, 01:03 AM   #1027
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 7,926
deleted

Last edited by DOC; 31st January 2013 at 01:24 AM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2013, 01:22 AM   #1028
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
...no research that can be done, no experimental simulation or replication that can be designed to show how any 'god' could be demonstrated to exist, much less to have the ability to create without being created.

Searching for testable answers leads to discoveries. Accepting superstitious assertions leads nowhere...
Well, the Book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Geisler/Turek doesn't accept superstitious assertions, it uses stone cold logic in their evidence for God. Here is a quote from page pg. 65.


"...we use induction to investigate God the same way we use it to investigate other things we can’t see— by observing their effects. For example, we can’t observe gravity directly; we can only observe its effects. Likewise we can’t observe the human mind directly, but only its effects. For those effects we make a rational inference to the existence of a cause."

In chapter 3 of the book the authors go into depth using science to give evidence for God.

Last edited by DOC; 31st January 2013 at 01:34 AM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2013, 01:35 AM   #1029
Akuma Tennou
Thinker
 
Akuma Tennou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 213
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a goalpost!
__________________
"Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species" − E. O. Wilson
Akuma Tennou is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2013, 01:37 AM   #1030
Recovering Agnostic
Back Pew Heckler
 
Recovering Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Well, the Book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Geisler/Turek doesn't accept superstitious assertion, it uses stone cold logic in their evidence for God. Here is a quote from page pg. 65.


"...we use induction to investigate God the same way we use it to investigate other things we can’t see— by observing their effects. For example, we can’t observe gravity directly; we can only observe its effects. Likewise we can’t observe the human mind directly, but only its effects. For those effects we make a rational inference to the existence of a cause."

In chapter 3 of the book the authors go into depth using science to give evidence for God.
Orly?

How do they tell the difference between "This happens because of natural laws" and "This happens because God"? Doesn't the methodology you describe just lead to Intelligent Falling?
__________________
My glorified brain dump, ranting space and navel fluff collection

The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge - Thomas Berger
Recovering Agnostic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2013, 01:39 AM   #1031
biomorph
Muse
 
biomorph's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: here, and sometimes elsewhere
Posts: 866
Quote:
When you can create a living cell out of non-living chemicals, your Nobel prize will be waiting. It's odd that brilliant scientific minds can't do it but non-intelligent random chance supposedly did it (at least according to the unproven scientific theory).
I'm not surprised you deleted this, as you probably are aware that this assumes it will never happen.

Seeing as the likes of Craig Venter are so close as to render your "never" as in meaning "in the foreseeable future", you know you'll get called on it.
biomorph is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2013, 01:51 AM   #1032
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by biomorph View Post
I'm not surprised you deleted this, as you probably are aware that this assumes it will never happen.

Seeing as the likes of Craig Venter are so close as to render your "never" as in meaning "in the foreseeable future", you know you'll get called on it.
I hear that a lot on the news, things like scientists estimate a cure is five years away, and that's the last I hear of it.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2013, 01:58 AM   #1033
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by Akuma Tennou View Post
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a goalpost!
Actually if scientific evidence leads to rational belief in God that would be evidence that supports the bible because the bible asserts the existence of God and thus it is related to the topic.

Last edited by DOC; 31st January 2013 at 02:00 AM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2013, 02:08 AM   #1034
Akuma Tennou
Thinker
 
Akuma Tennou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Actually if scientific evidence leads to rational belief in God that would be evidence that supports the bible because the bible asserts the existence of God and thus it is related to the topic.
I could not care less of this now. The goalposts were exactly set on John 19:11 that you yourself pasted here. Did you read it?
__________________
"Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species" − E. O. Wilson
Akuma Tennou is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2013, 02:25 AM   #1035
biomorph
Muse
 
biomorph's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: here, and sometimes elsewhere
Posts: 866
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
I hear that a lot on the news, things like scientists estimate a cure is five years away, and that's the last I hear of it.
Yes I know, it does seem that way, however someones "5 year" guesstimate is IMO just that, however progress does happen and research marches on regardless of these estimates.

Timescales are not that relevant when the "never happen" argument turns up.

Look at all the great things that have been discovered that took years to sort out, many before these things were found out would have said "never" too, and maybe even died before the dicovery was made prossbly...

However you did (rightly IMO) delete your comment, so I'm guessing here you know you were on dodgy ground.

I'm not critising you for it, I think it shows some honesty and doubt that what you posted is perhaps in your mind, arguable.
biomorph is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2013, 02:52 AM   #1036
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by biomorph View Post
However you did (rightly IMO) delete your comment, so I'm guessing here you know you were on dodgy ground.

I'm not critising you for it, I think it shows some honesty and doubt that what you posted is perhaps in your mind, arguable.
Actually that is not the reason I deleted it. I'll be glad to put it back if you want.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2013, 02:54 AM   #1037
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 27,887
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
In chapter 3 of the book the authors go into depth using science to give evidence for God.


I'm looking forward to you presenting it.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2013, 02:55 AM   #1038
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic View Post

How do they tell the difference between "This happens because of natural laws" and "This happens because God"? Doesn't the methodology you describe just lead to Intelligent Falling?
Not if only the supernatural can explain a phenomenon.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2013, 02:59 AM   #1039
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 27,887
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Actually that is not the reason I deleted it. I'll be glad to put it back if you want.


I'd rather see your explanation for the three-days-and-three-nights problem please.

Especially if it's one that doesn't claim that Saturday starts at sunset on Friday.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2013, 03:01 AM   #1040
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 27,887
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Not if only the supernatural can explain a phenomenon.


If only the supernatural can explain something then it's not a phenomenon at all - it's a fantasy.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.