Bible fallacies and internal contradictions - Page 7

I Ratant · 10th June 2012, 05:54 PM

Volcanic eruptions do that today..
Seen it occur.
Massive brush/forest fires change the color of the sun also.

tsig · 10th June 2012, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Usual blow off - I suspect you dont see the point because it gives you an excuse. Just because you can find east Orion or south with Crux does not mean thats the direction you want or need to go

You seem to be defending a bible story by ignoring the actual words of the bible:

He sent them to Bethlehem and said, Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also. When they heard the king, they departed (went away); and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was

tsig · 10th June 2012, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Not heard of the New Covenant then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant

Now we come to a real contradiction in the bible. Why is the OT god so different from the NT god?

TimCallahan · 10th June 2012, 06:30 PM

MG1962: Look, the whole star of Bethlehem is a myth, plain and simple. Consider the following:

1) There's no mention of it -- whether "it" was a supernova or some sort of conjunction pointing to a king being born in Judea -- outside the Bible.

2) The only mention of it in the Bible is in Matthew. No other gospels refer to the star of Bethlehem.

3) Historically, at this time things had quieted down between the Parthians -- the source of any Zoroastrian magi from the east - and the Romans.

4) Because of this, the Parthians had no interest in any potential king of the Jews.

5) My point in bringing up the nativity stories -- one you seem to have missed -- is that those of Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Is this getting through?

MG1962 · 10th June 2012, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

You seem to be defending a bible story by ignoring the actual words of the bible:

He sent them to Bethlehem and said, Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also. When they heard the king, they departed (went away); and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was

I am not trying to defend the Bible at all - ddt and I agreed very early on in this discussion on that point. My interest in the passage is the Magi and the narrative about them.

Without knowing the timing of their arrival in Jersulem any answer to the second part would be an uneducated guess. In the months following the conjunction Jupiter did climb higher into the sky in a slightly southern bearing.

MG1962 · 10th June 2012, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

Now we come to a real contradiction in the bible. Why is the OT god so different from the NT god?

Dont know, maybe a Rabbi can answer that for you. The Old Testament has God changing the rules three times before we get to the New Testament.

ddt · 10th June 2012, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

I am not trying to defend the Bible at all - ddt and I agreed very early on in this discussion on that point.

Somehow I can nowhere in this thread find an acknowledgement of yours that you don't take Matthew's story literally - despite I asked you to do so several times. In fact, you led me on a wild goose chase by not telling that, prompting me to explain word-by-word what Matthew actually wrote. That's definitely not "very early".

Originally Posted by MG1962

My interest in the passage is the Magi and the narrative about them.

Without knowing the timing of their arrival in Jersulem any answer to the second part would be an uneducated guess. In the months following the conjunction Jupiter did climb higher into the sky in a slightly southern bearing.

So why don't you first establish whether it's credible at all that there may be truth to the Magi travelling to Jerusalem? You've been severely lacking in that department, and outright dishonest.

ddt · 10th June 2012, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Dont know, maybe a Rabbi can answer that for you. The Old Testament has God changing the rules three times before we get to the New Testament.

The OT is as much part of your holy book, so it's as much your problem.

keale · 10th June 2012, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Dont know, maybe a Rabbi can answer that for you. The Old Testament has God changing the rules three times before we get to the New Testament.

Strange, A perfect god should have got it right the first time. Its almost like he didnt know.....

MG1962 · 10th June 2012, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by ddt

Somehow I can nowhere in this thread find an acknowledgement of yours that you don't take Matthew's story literally - despite I asked you to do so several times. In fact, you led me on a wild goose chase by not telling that, prompting me to explain word-by-word what Matthew actually wrote. That's definitely not "very early".

Post 93 and you responded in post 101 with the suggestion you had doubts about Micah 5:2 - which with all the back and forwards we really didn't explore.

MG1962 · 10th June 2012, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by ddt

The OT is as much part of your holy book, so it's as much your problem.

Sure but doesn't mean I have to know the answer to that question

MG1962 · 10th June 2012, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by keale

Strange, A perfect god should have got it right the first time. Its almost like he didnt know.....

And hence why I suggested an expert in the Old Testament. He had three goes with them in a space of 1500 years - We have had one shot and ran with it for 2000 years

psionl0 · 10th June 2012, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by Turok12

This shows a lack of understanding of God's nature. God is so perfect and just and sin is so offensive to him, that the only just punishment is
eternal suffering.

Make up your mind. If you are going to argue that God is about punishment then you can't claim that "God is Love".

ddt · 11th June 2012, 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Post 93 and you responded in post 101

I can't really see you saying outright in post #93 that you deviate from Matthew's story - one needs to compare your writeup with that of Matthew to be able to conclude that. And then it's still vague enough to not be sure if you do. And in post #101 I wrote

Quote:

because we agree, apparently, that Matthew's account is not correct.

which you never confirmed.

ddt · 11th June 2012, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Sure but doesn't mean I have to know the answer to that question

But not necessarily a rabbi then. Haven't the Pope and the Councils and various catholic theologians thought about it too?

Originally Posted by MG1962

And hence why I suggested an expert in the Old Testament. He had three goes with them in a space of 1500 years - We have had one shot and ran with it for 2000 years

Yes, "you" totally ignored that your God also appeared to an Arab caravan trader about 600 years later. And also left some golden plates for an American minister to discover.

dafydd · 11th June 2012, 04:32 AM

That's not surprising, the bible is one long incorrect account.

tsig · 11th June 2012, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by ddt

The OT is as much part of your holy book, so it's as much your problem.

It's only a holy book when they want to proof text Jesus other than that it must be interpreted by the culture of the society, it only applied to the Jews then, ect, ect, ect.

tsig · 11th June 2012, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

And hence why I suggested an expert in the Old Testament. He had three goes with them in a space of 1500 years - We have had one shot and ran with it for 2000 years

Actually I was referring to the completely different personalities god has, OT god is wrathful and quick to anger while the NT god is love and peace the contrast could hardly be more complete.

dafydd · 11th June 2012, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Actually I was referring to the completely different personalities god has, OT god is wrathful and quick to anger while the NT god is love and peace the contrast could hardly be more complete.

There are often unexpected twists in the plots of works of fiction.

MG1962 · 11th June 2012, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

That's not surprising, the bible is one long incorrect account.

So if we find one thing in the Bible that is correct, but not recorded anywhere else, where does that leave your statement?

MG1962 · 11th June 2012, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

It's only a holy book when they want to proof text Jesus other than that it must be interpreted by the culture of the society, it only applied to the Jews then, ect, ect, ect.

And if that is how the Jewish people see it, what say you

MG1962 · 11th June 2012, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by ddt

I can't really see you saying outright in post #93 that you deviate from Matthew's story - one needs to compare your writeup with that of Matthew to be able to conclude that. And then it's still vague enough to not be sure if you do. And in post #101 I wrote

which you never confirmed.

I read a history thesis on the topic of "Public Memory" how and why things are remembered in the pre information age, and how myths and legends can grow from these memories.

The core of his argument was - how would people know specific facts. In the case of the Magi it is a detail not needed to complete the nativity, but a detail that does not require any intervention of God to have occurred.

The author of Mathew could not possibly know the truth of the event. Even if Mathew himself wrote the Gospel or left accounts, I believe he is considered to be younger than Jesus so couldn't have been there so to speak

dafydd · 11th June 2012, 08:12 AM

How tall was Gandalf?

TimCallahan · 11th June 2012, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

MG1962: Look, the whole star of Bethlehem is a myth, plain and simple. Consider the following:

1) There's no mention of it -- whether "it" was a supernova or some sort of conjunction pointing to a king being born in Judea -- outside the Bible.

2) The only mention of it in the Bible is in Matthew. No other gospels refer to the star of Bethlehem.

3) Historically, at this time things had quieted down between the Parthians -- the source of any Zoroastrian magi from the east - and the Romans.

4) Because of this, the Parthians had no interest in any potential king of the Jews.

5) My point in bringing up the nativity stories -- one you seem to have missed -- is that those of Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Is this getting through?

MG1962: Am I going to get a response to the post above?

pakeha · 11th June 2012, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

So if we find one thing in the Bible that is correct, but not recorded anywhere else, where does that leave your statement?

Do you have a specific example in mind?

dafydd · 11th June 2012, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by pakeha

Do you have a specific example in mind?

I can't think of any facts in the old testament.

MG1962 · 11th June 2012, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

1) There's no mention of it -- whether "it" was a supernova or some sort of conjunction pointing to a king being born in Judea -- outside the Bible.

And.............

Quote:

2) The only mention of it in the Bible is in Matthew. No other gospels refer to the star of Bethlehem.

Is anyone disputing this

Quote:

3) Historically, at this time things had quieted down between the Parthians -- the source of any Zoroastrian magi from the east - and the Romans.

Trade

Quote:

4) Because of this, the Parthians had no interest in any potential king of the Jews.

Trade routes

Quote:

5) My point in bringing up the nativity stories -- one you seem to have missed -- is that those of Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Is this getting through?

Sorry this is not about you - I was addressing points brought up ddt in post four of this thread

MG1962 · 11th June 2012, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by pakeha

Do you have a specific example in mind?

Yeah I have a couple and a few maybes depending on where archeology currently stands on the topic

MG1962 · 11th June 2012, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I can't think of any facts in the old testament.

So if I prove you wrong...where does that leave your argument?

dafydd · 11th June 2012, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

So if I prove you wrong...where does that leave your argument?

Impossible to say until you come up with an example of a fact in the bible that is not mentioned anywhere else.

TimCallahan · 11th June 2012, 09:41 AM

Another Bible story that is replete with doublets is that of the miracle at the sea in Exodus. In Ex. 14:21 - 23, atfter Moses stretches his hand out over the sea and God has driven the sea back by a strong east wind (there already seem to be a mix of two traditions here), the children of Israel walk through a dry seabed with the waters standing like walls on their right and left. The Egyptians pursue them into the seabed. Yet, in the the succeeding verses, Ex. 14:24 - 28 God looks down on the Egyptians out of the pillar of fire, terrifying them. They flee into the dry seabed. Moses stretches his had over the seabed, and the waters return to drown the Egyptians.

Incidentally, like the star of Bethlehem, the miracles of Exodus, the various plagues and the miracle at the sea, are the source of all sorts of speculation on a "scientific" explanation. One of these is the Thera hypothesis, i.e. that the eruption on Thera generated volcanic clouds (plague of darkness), the fall of sediment into the Nile (Nile running with blood, plague of frogs), disruptions in insect populations (plagues of locusts, gnats, flies etc.), the visible plume of the erupting volcano (pillars of fire and smoke) and, finally, a tsunami, preceded by receding waters (the miracle at the sea). Among the many problems of the various "scientific" scenarios are the following: The Thera eruption is probably too early for the Exodus; there's no historical indication of the collapse of Egyptian power at either ca. 1450 or 1200 BCE and no archaeological support for the conquest as related in the Book of Joshua. Concerning the latter, Many of the cities supposedly destroyed in the genocidal blitzkrieg of Joshua are powerful and are, in fact, menacing the children of Israel in the Book of Judges - yet another example of internal contradiction.

blobru · 11th June 2012, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Actually I was referring to the completely different personalities god has, OT god is wrathful and quick to anger while the NT god is love and peace the contrast could hardly be more complete.

Although to give Him His due, at the end of the NT (Revelation), He does revert to wrathful type; arguably, "love and peace" was just a stage He was going through.

MG1962 · 11th June 2012, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Impossible to say until you come up with an example of a fact in the bible that is not mentioned anywhere else.

So not prepared to make a call..okay then

dafydd · 11th June 2012, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by blobru

"love and peace" was just a stage He was going through.

I wonder if drugs had anything to do with that?

dafydd · 11th June 2012, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

So not prepared to make a call..okay then

What? Give me the fact then I can comment on it. You haven't got one, have you?

TimCallahan · 11th June 2012, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

. . . [major snip]

Trade

Trade routes

. . . [snip]

Actually, it would have been the Romans who were concerned with trade routes. After the abortive invasions of their empire by Crassus and Mark Antony, the Parthians had closed the trade routes to India to the Romans. In making peace with the Parthians Augustus was able to get them to reopen the routes to Roman trade.

MG1962 · 11th June 2012, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Many of the cities supposedly destroyed in the genocidal blitzkrieg of Joshua are powerful and are, in fact, menacing the children of Israel in the Book of Judges - yet another example of internal contradiction.

What is the internal contradiction here? I'm not aware of any other accounts of Joshua actions in the Old Testament.

MG1962 · 11th June 2012, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Actually, it would have been the Romans who were concerned with trade routes. After the abortive invasions of their empire by Crassus and Mark Antony, the Parthians had closed the trade routes to India to the Romans. In making peace with the Parthians Augustus was able to get them to reopen the routes to Roman trade.

But the Persians were making bank in trade of Frankincense out of the Arabian pennisular all the way through to China

blobru · 11th June 2012, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I wonder if drugs had anything to do with that?

I'd imagine all the smoke rising from burnt offerings can get a fella to feelin' pretty good.

dafydd · 11th June 2012, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

But the Persians were making bank in trade of Frankincense out of the Arabian pennisular all the way through to China

How do you make a bank?

10th June 2012, 06:30 PM	#244
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,117	MG1962: Look, the whole star of Bethlehem is a myth, plain and simple. Consider the following: 1) There's no mention of it -- whether "it" was a supernova or some sort of conjunction pointing to a king being born in Judea -- outside the Bible. 2) The only mention of it in the Bible is in Matthew. No other gospels refer to the star of Bethlehem. 3) Historically, at this time things had quieted down between the Parthians -- the source of any Zoroastrian magi from the east - and the Romans. 4) Because of this, the Parthians had no interest in any potential king of the Jews. 5) My point in bringing up the nativity stories -- one you seem to have missed -- is that those of Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Is this getting through?
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,117

10th June 2012, 07:33 PM	#247
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,317	Originally Posted by MG1962 I am not trying to defend the Bible at all - ddt and I agreed very early on in this discussion on that point. Somehow I can nowhere in this thread find an acknowledgement of yours that you don't take Matthew's story literally - despite I asked you to do so several times. In fact, you led me on a wild goose chase by not telling that, prompting me to explain word-by-word what Matthew actually wrote. That's definitely not "very early". Originally Posted by MG1962 My interest in the passage is the Magi and the narrative about them. Without knowing the timing of their arrival in Jersulem any answer to the second part would be an uneducated guess. In the months following the conjunction Jupiter did climb higher into the sky in a slightly southern bearing. So why don't you first establish whether it's credible at all that there may be truth to the Magi travelling to Jerusalem? You've been severely lacking in that department, and outright dishonest.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

10th June 2012, 07:35 PM	#248
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,317	Originally Posted by MG1962 Dont know, maybe a Rabbi can answer that for you. The Old Testament has God changing the rules three times before we get to the New Testament. The OT is as much part of your holy book, so it's as much your problem.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

10th June 2012, 08:53 PM	#249
keale Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 813	Originally Posted by MG1962 Dont know, maybe a Rabbi can answer that for you. The Old Testament has God changing the rules three times before we get to the New Testament. Strange, A perfect god should have got it right the first time. Its almost like he didnt know.....
keale Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 813

11th June 2012, 04:26 AM	#254
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,317	Originally Posted by MG1962 Post 93 and you responded in post 101 I can't really see you saying outright in post #93 that you deviate from Matthew's story - one needs to compare your writeup with that of Matthew to be able to conclude that. And then it's still vague enough to not be sure if you do. And in post #101 I wrote Quote: because we agree, apparently, that Matthew's account is not correct. which you never confirmed.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

10th June 2012, 05:54 PM	#241
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Volcanic eruptions do that today.. Seen it occur. Massive brush/forest fires change the color of the sun also.

10th June 2012, 06:10 PM	#242
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,670	Originally Posted by MG1962 Usual blow off - I suspect you dont see the point because it gives you an excuse. Just because you can find east Orion or south with Crux does not mean thats the direction you want or need to go You seem to be defending a bible story by ignoring the actual words of the bible: He sent them to Bethlehem and said, Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also. When they heard the king, they departed (went away); and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was

10th June 2012, 06:15 PM	#243
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,670	Originally Posted by MG1962 Not heard of the New Covenant then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant Now we come to a real contradiction in the bible. Why is the OT god so different from the NT god?

10th June 2012, 07:05 PM	#245
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by tsig You seem to be defending a bible story by ignoring the actual words of the bible: He sent them to Bethlehem and said, Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also. When they heard the king, they departed (went away); and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was I am not trying to defend the Bible at all - ddt and I agreed very early on in this discussion on that point. My interest in the passage is the Magi and the narrative about them. Without knowing the timing of their arrival in Jersulem any answer to the second part would be an uneducated guess. In the months following the conjunction Jupiter did climb higher into the sky in a slightly southern bearing.

10th June 2012, 07:08 PM	#246
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by tsig Now we come to a real contradiction in the bible. Why is the OT god so different from the NT god? Dont know, maybe a Rabbi can answer that for you. The Old Testament has God changing the rules three times before we get to the New Testament.

10th June 2012, 10:14 PM	#250
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by ddt Somehow I can nowhere in this thread find an acknowledgement of yours that you don't take Matthew's story literally - despite I asked you to do so several times. In fact, you led me on a wild goose chase by not telling that, prompting me to explain word-by-word what Matthew actually wrote. That's definitely not "very early". Post 93 and you responded in post 101 with the suggestion you had doubts about Micah 5:2 - which with all the back and forwards we really didn't explore.

10th June 2012, 10:17 PM	#251
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by ddt The OT is as much part of your holy book, so it's as much your problem. Sure but doesn't mean I have to know the answer to that question

10th June 2012, 10:18 PM	#252
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by keale Strange, A perfect god should have got it right the first time. Its almost like he didnt know..... And hence why I suggested an expert in the Old Testament. He had three goes with them in a space of 1500 years - We have had one shot and ran with it for 2000 years

10th June 2012, 10:20 PM	#253
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,760	Originally Posted by Turok12 This shows a lack of understanding of God's nature. God is so perfect and just and sin is so offensive to him, that the only just punishment is eternal suffering. Make up your mind. If you are going to argue that God is about punishment then you can't claim that "God is Love".

11th June 2012, 04:30 AM	#255
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,317	Originally Posted by MG1962 Sure but doesn't mean I have to know the answer to that question But not necessarily a rabbi then. Haven't the Pope and the Councils and various catholic theologians thought about it too? Originally Posted by MG1962 And hence why I suggested an expert in the Old Testament. He had three goes with them in a space of 1500 years - We have had one shot and ran with it for 2000 years Yes, "you" totally ignored that your God also appeared to an Arab caravan trader about 600 years later. And also left some golden plates for an American minister to discover.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

11th June 2012, 04:32 AM	#256
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	That's not surprising, the bible is one long incorrect account.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

11th June 2012, 04:45 AM	#257
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,670	Originally Posted by ddt The OT is as much part of your holy book, so it's as much your problem. It's only a holy book when they want to proof text Jesus other than that it must be interpreted by the culture of the society, it only applied to the Jews then, ect, ect, ect.

11th June 2012, 04:56 AM	#258
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,670	Originally Posted by MG1962 And hence why I suggested an expert in the Old Testament. He had three goes with them in a space of 1500 years - We have had one shot and ran with it for 2000 years Actually I was referring to the completely different personalities god has, OT god is wrathful and quick to anger while the NT god is love and peace the contrast could hardly be more complete.

11th June 2012, 05:01 AM	#259
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by tsig Actually I was referring to the completely different personalities god has, OT god is wrathful and quick to anger while the NT god is love and peace the contrast could hardly be more complete. There are often unexpected twists in the plots of works of fiction.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

11th June 2012, 07:42 AM	#260
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by dafydd That's not surprising, the bible is one long incorrect account. So if we find one thing in the Bible that is correct, but not recorded anywhere else, where does that leave your statement?

11th June 2012, 07:43 AM	#261
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by tsig It's only a holy book when they want to proof text Jesus other than that it must be interpreted by the culture of the society, it only applied to the Jews then, ect, ect, ect. And if that is how the Jewish people see it, what say you

11th June 2012, 08:04 AM	#262
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by ddt I can't really see you saying outright in post #93 that you deviate from Matthew's story - one needs to compare your writeup with that of Matthew to be able to conclude that. And then it's still vague enough to not be sure if you do. And in post #101 I wrote which you never confirmed. I read a history thesis on the topic of "Public Memory" how and why things are remembered in the pre information age, and how myths and legends can grow from these memories. The core of his argument was - how would people know specific facts. In the case of the Magi it is a detail not needed to complete the nativity, but a detail that does not require any intervention of God to have occurred. The author of Mathew could not possibly know the truth of the event. Even if Mathew himself wrote the Gospel or left accounts, I believe he is considered to be younger than Jesus so couldn't have been there so to speak

11th June 2012, 08:12 AM	#263
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	How tall was Gandalf?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

11th June 2012, 09:11 AM	#264
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,117	Originally Posted by TimCallahan MG1962: Look, the whole star of Bethlehem is a myth, plain and simple. Consider the following: 1) There's no mention of it -- whether "it" was a supernova or some sort of conjunction pointing to a king being born in Judea -- outside the Bible. 2) The only mention of it in the Bible is in Matthew. No other gospels refer to the star of Bethlehem. 3) Historically, at this time things had quieted down between the Parthians -- the source of any Zoroastrian magi from the east - and the Romans. 4) Because of this, the Parthians had no interest in any potential king of the Jews. 5) My point in bringing up the nativity stories -- one you seem to have missed -- is that those of Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Is this getting through? MG1962: Am I going to get a response to the post above?
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,117

11th June 2012, 09:18 AM	#265
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,968	Originally Posted by MG1962 So if we find one thing in the Bible that is correct, but not recorded anywhere else, where does that leave your statement? Do you have a specific example in mind?
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,968	__________________ To a conspiracy theorist, having double standards just means that they have twice as many standards. carlitos

11th June 2012, 09:25 AM	#266
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by pakeha Do you have a specific example in mind? I can't think of any facts in the old testament.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

11th June 2012, 09:36 AM	#267
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by TimCallahan 1) There's no mention of it -- whether "it" was a supernova or some sort of conjunction pointing to a king being born in Judea -- outside the Bible. And............. Quote: 2) The only mention of it in the Bible is in Matthew. No other gospels refer to the star of Bethlehem. Is anyone disputing this Quote: 3) Historically, at this time things had quieted down between the Parthians -- the source of any Zoroastrian magi from the east - and the Romans. Trade Quote: 4) Because of this, the Parthians had no interest in any potential king of the Jews. Trade routes Quote: 5) My point in bringing up the nativity stories -- one you seem to have missed -- is that those of Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Is this getting through? Sorry this is not about you - I was addressing points brought up ddt in post four of this thread

11th June 2012, 09:38 AM	#268
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by pakeha Do you have a specific example in mind? Yeah I have a couple and a few maybes depending on where archeology currently stands on the topic

11th June 2012, 09:39 AM	#269
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by dafydd I can't think of any facts in the old testament. So if I prove you wrong...where does that leave your argument?

11th June 2012, 09:40 AM	#270
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by MG1962 So if I prove you wrong...where does that leave your argument? Impossible to say until you come up with an example of a fact in the bible that is not mentioned anywhere else.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

11th June 2012, 09:41 AM	#271
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,117	Another Bible story that is replete with doublets is that of the miracle at the sea in Exodus. In Ex. 14:21 - 23, atfter Moses stretches his hand out over the sea and God has driven the sea back by a strong east wind (there already seem to be a mix of two traditions here), the children of Israel walk through a dry seabed with the waters standing like walls on their right and left. The Egyptians pursue them into the seabed. Yet, in the the succeeding verses, Ex. 14:24 - 28 God looks down on the Egyptians out of the pillar of fire, terrifying them. They flee into the dry seabed. Moses stretches his had over the seabed, and the waters return to drown the Egyptians. Incidentally, like the star of Bethlehem, the miracles of Exodus, the various plagues and the miracle at the sea, are the source of all sorts of speculation on a "scientific" explanation. One of these is the Thera hypothesis, i.e. that the eruption on Thera generated volcanic clouds (plague of darkness), the fall of sediment into the Nile (Nile running with blood, plague of frogs), disruptions in insect populations (plagues of locusts, gnats, flies etc.), the visible plume of the erupting volcano (pillars of fire and smoke) and, finally, a tsunami, preceded by receding waters (the miracle at the sea). Among the many problems of the various "scientific" scenarios are the following: The Thera eruption is probably too early for the Exodus; there's no historical indication of the collapse of Egyptian power at either ca. 1450 or 1200 BCE and no archaeological support for the conquest as related in the Book of Joshua. Concerning the latter, Many of the cities supposedly destroyed in the genocidal blitzkrieg of Joshua are powerful and are, in fact, menacing the children of Israel in the Book of Judges - yet another example of internal contradiction.
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,117

11th June 2012, 09:45 AM	#272
blobru Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,589	Originally Posted by tsig Actually I was referring to the completely different personalities god has, OT god is wrathful and quick to anger while the NT god is love and peace the contrast could hardly be more complete. Although to give Him His due, at the end of the NT (Revelation), He does revert to wrathful type; arguably, "love and peace" was just a stage He was going through.
blobru Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,589	__________________ "Say to them, 'I am Nobody!'" -- Ulysses to the Cyclops "Never mind. I can't read." -- Hokulele to the Easter Bunny Last edited by blobru; 11th June 2012 at 09:46 AM.

11th June 2012, 09:46 AM	#273
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by dafydd Impossible to say until you come up with an example of a fact in the bible that is not mentioned anywhere else. So not prepared to make a call..okay then

11th June 2012, 09:48 AM	#274
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by blobru "love and peace" was just a stage He was going through. I wonder if drugs had anything to do with that?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

11th June 2012, 09:49 AM	#275
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by MG1962 So not prepared to make a call..okay then What? Give me the fact then I can comment on it. You haven't got one, have you?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.