Prophecy of the Popes

[Maggsy]

according to Malachy the next Pope is the last one.like probably most of you I'm hoping he is.i don't actaully have much faith in prophecies,they have a poor record,Nostradamus for example in 1999.only the Bible has a good record on prophecy, Isaiah 53 for example.Peter the Roman is supposed to be the next Pope,there is infact a Peter amongst one of the favorites to become Pope,but i don't think he's Roman.i will be watching with interest any way,odds on its another failed prophecy.

[sbalneav]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> according to Malachy the next Pope is the last one.

I doubt it, unfortunately.

> like probably most of you I'm hoping he is.i don't actaully have much faith
> in prophecies,they have a poor record,Nostradamus for example in 1999.only
> the Bible has a good record on prophecy,

Sure, if you write the later bits saying they fulfilled the earlier bits.

> Isaiah 53 for example.

The Jews disagree with you on this.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/isaiah53/isaiah-53-in-53-seconds/

> Peter the
> Roman is supposed to be the next Pope,there is infact a Peter amongst one of
> the favorites to become Pope,but i don't think he's Roman.i will be watching
> with interest any way,odds on its another failed prophecy.

Prophesies are deliberately vague, to make them easy to fulfill.

--
(` |) | Freedom means learning to deal with being offended.
_) |) | -- Andrew Sullivan
a.a #2171 |

[Dakota]

On 3/9/2013 6:25 PM, sbalneav wrote:
> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> according to Malachy the next Pope is the last one.
>
> I doubt it, unfortunately.
>
>> like probably most of you I'm hoping he is.i don't actaully have much faith
>> in prophecies,they have a poor record,Nostradamus for example in 1999.only
>> the Bible has a good record on prophecy,
>
> Sure, if you write the later bits saying they fulfilled the earlier bits.
>
>> Isaiah 53 for example.
>
> The Jews disagree with you on this.
>
> http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/isaiah53/isaiah-53-in-53-seconds/
>
>> Peter the
>> Roman is supposed to be the next Pope,there is infact a Peter amongst one of
>> the favorites to become Pope,but i don't think he's Roman.i will be watching
>> with interest any way,odds on its another failed prophecy.
>
> Prophesies are deliberately vague, to make them easy to fulfill.
>

Nostradamus was a master of writing that way. Nothing he wrote
predicted anything at all. Some events have been loosely fit into what
he wrote though.

[sbalneav]

Yeah, here, let me come up with a Nostradamus Style Prophesy:

"After the sleeping giant of the east Crosses the river, there will be a Great
Fire, and there will be a culling of the sheep"

What events could we apply this to? I can think of at least 5 off the top of
my head.

--
(` |) | Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
_) |) | -- Pablo Picasso
a.a #2171 |

[Maggsy]

On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:25:36 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > according to Malachy the next Pope is the last one.
>
>
>
> I doubt it, unfortunately.
>
>
>
> > like probably most of you I'm hoping he is.i don't actaully have much faith
>
> > in prophecies,they have a poor record,Nostradamus for example in 1999.only
>
> > the Bible has a good record on prophecy,
>
>
>
> Sure, if you write the later bits saying they fulfilled the earlier bits.

so you think the gospels are just made up? there is no evidence for this,infact the evidence points to them being written by an eyewitness+Luke's gospel was written after he had researched + talked to those concerned.

>
>
>
> > Isaiah 53 for example.
>
>
>
> The Jews disagree with you on this.
>
>
>
> http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/isaiah53/isaiah-53-in-53-seconds/
>
>
>
> > Peter the
>
> > Roman is supposed to be the next Pope,there is infact a Peter amongst one of
>
> > the favorites to become Pope,but i don't think he's Roman.i will be watching
>
> > with interest any way,odds on its another failed prophecy.
>
>
>
> Prophesies are deliberately vague, to make them easy to fulfill.

well this one isn't+neither was the 1999 Nostradamus prophecy or Isaiah 53

[Maggsy]

On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:25:36 UTC, sbalneav wrote:

> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > according to Malachy the next Pope is the last one.
>
>
>
> I doubt it, unfortunately.
>
>
>
> > like probably most of you I'm hoping he is.i don't actaully have much faith
>
> > in prophecies,they have a poor record,Nostradamus for example in 1999.only
>
> > the Bible has a good record on prophecy,
>
>
>
> Sure, if you write the later bits saying they fulfilled the earlier bits.
>
>
>
> > Isaiah 53 for example.
>
>
>
> The Jews disagree with you on this.
>
>
>
> http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/isaiah53/isaiah-53-in-53-seconds/

if Isaiah 53 is talking about the nation Israel then when was Israel pierced for our sins? who can speak of his descendants? Israel has descendents.when was Israel assigned a grave with the wicked = the rich in his death? its very clear this is talking about Jesus,not Israel.only in this chapter is the servert called he.




as for this "To validate their biased misinterpretation, missionaries intentionally avoid mention of a critical fact. In Isaiah 53:5, they deliberately mistranslate the word “from” as “for”, andthereby claim that the Servant will suffer for the sins of the Jewish people. In fact, the verse says that the nations of the world will actually admit that Israel – the Servant of God – “was wounded from our transgressions, bruised from our iniquities.” In the original Hebrew, the letter “מ – mem” which serves as the prefix to the words “transgressions” and “iniquities” means “from”, not “for.” Therefore, this verse cannot be read as supporting the Christian view that the Servant, namely Jesus, suffers for the sins of the world."

according to wiki it says nothing about from.


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

[Burkhard]

On Mar 10, 6:16 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:25:36 UTC, sbalneav  wrote:

> > Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > according to Malachy the next Pope is the last one.
>
> > I doubt it, unfortunately.
>
> > > like probably most of you I'm hoping he is.i don't actaully have much faith
>
> > > in prophecies,they have a poor record,Nostradamus for example in 1999.only
>
> > > the Bible has a good record on prophecy,
>
> > Sure, if you write the later bits saying they fulfilled the earlier bits.
>
> > > Isaiah 53 for example.
>
> > The Jews disagree with you on this.
>
> >http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/isaiah53/isaiah-53-in-53-seconds/
>
> if Isaiah 53 is talking about the nation Israel then when was Israel pierced for our sins? who can speak of his descendants? Israel has descendents.when was Israel assigned a grave with the wicked = the rich in his death? its very clear this is talking about Jesus,not Israel.only in this chapter is the servert called he.
>
> as for this "To validate their biased misinterpretation, missionaries intentionally avoid mention of a critical fact. In Isaiah 53:5, they deliberately mistranslate the word “from” as “for”, andthereby claim that the Servant will suffer for the sins of the Jewish people. In fact, the verse says that the nations of the world will actually admit that Israel – the Servant of God – “was wounded from our transgressions, bruised from our iniquities.” In the original Hebrew, the letter “מ – mem” which serves as the prefix to the words “transgressions” and “iniquities” means “from”, not “for.” Therefore, this verse cannot be read as supporting the Christian view that the Servant, namely Jesus, suffers for the sins of the world."
>
> according to wiki it says nothing about from.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mem
>
>

Try e.g.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/2_alphabet.html
It is near the bottom of the page

And here a longer one,
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Seven/The_Preposition_Min/the_preposition_min.html

[sbalneav]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:25:36 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > according to Malachy the next Pope is the last one.
>>
>>
>>
>> I doubt it, unfortunately.
>>
>>
>>
>> > like probably most of you I'm hoping he is.i don't actaully have much faith
>>
>> > in prophecies,they have a poor record,Nostradamus for example in 1999.only
>>
>> > the Bible has a good record on prophecy,
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure, if you write the later bits saying they fulfilled the earlier bits.
>
>
> so you think the gospels are just made up? there is no evidence for
> this,infact the evidence points to them being written by an eyewitness+Luke's
> gospel was written after he had researched + talked to those concerned.

The Gospels weren't written until a minimum of 40 years after Christ's supposed
execution. They were written by anonymous authors and in NO INSTANCES do we
have the originals; at best we have 3rd or 4th generation copies.

>> > Isaiah 53 for example.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Jews disagree with you on this.
>>
>> http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/isaiah53/isaiah-53-in-53-seconds/
>>
>> > Peter the
>> > Roman is supposed to be the next Pope,there is infact a Peter amongst one of
>> > the favorites to become Pope,but i don't think he's Roman.i will be watching
>> > with interest any way,odds on its another failed prophecy.
>>
>> Prophesies are deliberately vague, to make them easy to fulfill.
>
> well this one isn't+neither was the 1999 Nostradamus prophecy or Isaiah 53

What 1999 Nostradamus prophesy?

--
(` |) | My two favorite things in life are libraries and bicycles.
_) |) | They both move people forward without wasting anything. The
a.a #2171 | perfect day: riding a bike to the library. -- Pete Golkin

[sbalneav]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:25:36 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > according to Malachy the next Pope is the last one.
>>
>>
>>
>> I doubt it, unfortunately.
>>
>>
>>
>> > like probably most of you I'm hoping he is.i don't actaully have much faith
>>
>> > in prophecies,they have a poor record,Nostradamus for example in 1999.only
>>
>> > the Bible has a good record on prophecy,
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure, if you write the later bits saying they fulfilled the earlier bits.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Isaiah 53 for example.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Jews disagree with you on this.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/isaiah53/isaiah-53-in-53-seconds/
>
>
> if Isaiah 53 is talking about the nation Israel then when was Israel pierced
> for our sins? who can speak of his descendants? Israel has descendents.when
> was Israel assigned a grave with the wicked = the rich in his death? its very
> clear this is talking about Jesus,not Israel.only in this chapter is the
> servert called he.

Like I say, the Jews disagree with you. As well, you have to provide, first,
some kind of evidence that Jesus even actually existed, which is tenuous at
best, then even IF you manage to prove he existed, you've still got a lot of
work to do to prove he was the Son of God, since so far, you haven't managed to
provide any evidence that God exists.

--
(` |) | The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and
_) |) | dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if
a.a #2171 | it had nothing else in the universe to do. -- Galileo

[Maggsy]

even if it should be from+not for,this could still apply to Jesus.

[Maggsy]

On Sunday, 10 March 2013 19:26:39 UTC, Burkhard wrote:

even if it should be from +not for it could still apply to Jesus.

[Smiler]

>> > Israel - the Servant of God - "was wounded from our transgressions,

>> > bruised from our iniquities." In the original Hebrew, the letter

>> > "mem" which serves as the prefix to the words "transgressions" and
>> > "iniquities" means "from", not "for." Therefore, this verse cannot be
>> > read as supporting the Christian view that the Servant, namely Jesus,
>> > suffers for the sins of the world."
>> > according to wiki it says nothing about from.
>>
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mem
>>
>> Try e.g.
>>
>> http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/2_alphabet.html
>>
>> It is near the bottom of the page
>>
>> And here a longer one,
>>
>> http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Seven/The_Preposition_Min/the_preposition_min.html
>
> even if it should be from +not for it could still apply to Jesus.

It could, or it could not, but you chose the option that fits your
beliefs, without a single scrap of evidence.

Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Maggsy]

On Monday, 11 March 2013 00:16:25 UTC, Smiler wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:06:36 -0700, Maggsy wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 19:26:39 UTC, Burkhard wrote:
>

> >> On Mar 10, 6:16�pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

so it does not matter then,how its translated.

but you chose the option that fits your
>
> beliefs,

you have just agreed in can be translated either way,so I'm not making it fit my beliefs,could as i say it could be either,its something i would have to study more to be sure.words can have different meaning depending on context.

without a single scrap of evidence.

i could say the same to you about your baseless assertions,but it wont stop you posting them.

>
>
>
> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

if those Holy Books are based on eyewitness testimony like the gospel of John is ,then yes they are evidence+Luke gospel was written after he had done careful research into the events,so that gospel is also evidence,they being Holy books or not is irrelevant

>
>
>
> --
>
> Smiler,
>
> The godless one. a.a.# 2279
>
> All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
>
> exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

so you say,where is your evidence?

[Maggsy]

On Sunday, 10 March 2013 19:54:40 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:25:36 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > according to Malachy the next Pope is the last one.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I doubt it, unfortunately.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > like probably most of you I'm hoping he is.i don't actaully have much faith
>
> >>
>
> >> > in prophecies,they have a poor record,Nostradamus for example in 1999.only
>
> >>
>
> >> > the Bible has a good record on prophecy,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Sure, if you write the later bits saying they fulfilled the earlier bits.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > Isaiah 53 for example.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The Jews disagree with you on this.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/isaiah53/isaiah-53-in-53-seconds/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > if Isaiah 53 is talking about the nation Israel then when was Israel pierced
>
> > for our sins? who can speak of his descendants? Israel has descendents.when
>
> > was Israel assigned a grave with the wicked = the rich in his death? its very
>
> > clear this is talking about Jesus,not Israel.only in this chapter is the
>
> > servert called he.
>
>
>
> Like I say, the Jews disagree with you.

and have have debunked what they say,of course you ignored this.

As well, you have to provide, first,
>
> some kind of evidence that Jesus even actually existed

oh please this is desperate skepticism,name one historian that doesn't actually believe Jesus existed? we have eyewitness testimony from one of the gospels,we have the record of Josephus.


Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[1][3][4][5][6][7] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed.A number of ancient non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[35] These include the works of 1st century Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus.[35][36] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.[37][38][39][40] Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus.[41]The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus and reflect the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician.[42][43][44][45] Other possible references to Jesus and his execution may exist in the Talmud, but they also aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Existence_and_location

, which is tenuous at
>
> best, then even IF you manage to prove he existed, you've still got a lot of
>
> work to do to prove he was the Son of God, since so far, you haven't managed to
>
> provide any evidence that God exists.

what exactly do you mean by evidence +in what way are you using the word God?
lets first get our
definitions,assuming you are really interested in a serious conversation on this subject.

[Maggsy]

On Sunday, 10 March 2013 19:50:58 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:25:36 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > according to Malachy the next Pope is the last one.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I doubt it, unfortunately.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > like probably most of you I'm hoping he is.i don't actaully have much faith
>
> >>
>
> >> > in prophecies,they have a poor record,Nostradamus for example in 1999.only
>
> >>
>
> >> > the Bible has a good record on prophecy,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Sure, if you write the later bits saying they fulfilled the earlier bits.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > so you think the gospels are just made up? there is no evidence for
>
> > this,infact the evidence points to them being written by an eyewitness+Luke's
>
> > gospel was written after he had researched + talked to those concerned.
>
>
>
> The Gospels weren't written until a minimum of 40 years after Christ's supposed
>
> execution.

we have an eyewitness desription of Jesus crucifiction.there is nothing supposed about it,name a historian that does not believe it?

They were written by anonymous authors and in NO INSTANCES do we
>
> have the originals;

if the church had wanted to make up authors for the gospels they would not have picked Luke,Mark+Matthew,two of who were not even disciples,they would have picked Peter+James who were two of the closest disciples to Jesus.

at best we have 3rd or 4th generation copies.

Have the Gospel texts been corrupted or altered over time?

Even if one is willing to accept that the Gospels in their original manuscripts were historically reliable—even remarkably so—one might still question whether the manuscripts were faithfully passed along. Since we don’t have the first or original copies of the Gospels how do we know that they were not greatly altered, so that what we have today is significantly different than what was originally written?

Since the original manuscripts were written on papyrus, which is susceptible to moisture and cracking, they had a short life-span and accordingly had to be copied. And of course when texts are copied, they are subject to human error or intentional manipulation. The question regarding the manuscript accuracy of the Gospels is not unique to them but rather applies to all ancient texts. But the Gospels are unique when compared with other ancient writings due to the unprecedented sum of copies that have survived and the age of the copies available. The number of copies is important in textual criticism because they can be cross-checked against one another to ascertain what the original document was like. Presently more than 5,664 Greek manuscripts from the New Testament have been discovered in addition to 8,000 to 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, plus 8,000 Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian copies. In all there are about 24,000 manuscripts in existence.

Unlike other ancient texts, there are New Testament manuscripts copied within a couple of generations of the originals, whereas in the case of other ancient texts, maybe five, eight, or ten centuries elapsed between the original and the earliest surviving copy. This wealth of remarkably early manuscript evidence led former director of the British Museum Sir Frederic Kenyon to state, “In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.”27 Next to the New Testament, the greatest amount of manuscript material is Homer’s Iliad of which there are fewer than 650 manuscripts. They come from the second and third centuries AD and later, a considerably long time from when the work was first written around 750 BC.

Textual criticism has demonstrated that the New Testament has been passed down in a form that is 99.5% pure, and in the small percentage of cases where there is significant uncertainty about what the original texts said, the general sense of the sentence is quite clear from the context, and textual variants are listed in marginal notes.28 This evidence for the accurate transmission of the New Testament manuscripts led Kenyon along with many other scholars to conclude, “The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.”29 Benjamin Warfield, who held four doctorates and taught at Princeton Theological Seminary until his death wrote:

If we compare the present state of the New Testament with that of any other ancient writing, we must…declare it to be marvelously correct. Such has been the care with which the New Testament has been copied—a care which has doubtless grown out of true reverence for its holy words…The New Testament is unrivaled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use.30http://www.dartmouthapologia.org/articles/show/85

[Maggsy]

1999 a great and terrifying leader would come out of the sky" in 1999 and 7 months "to resuscitate the great King from Angoumois

[sbalneav]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 19:54:40 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:25:36 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > according to Malachy the next Pope is the last one.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I doubt it, unfortunately.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > like probably most of you I'm hoping he is.i don't actaully have much faith
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > in prophecies,they have a poor record,Nostradamus for example in 1999.only
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > the Bible has a good record on prophecy,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Sure, if you write the later bits saying they fulfilled the earlier bits.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > Isaiah 53 for example.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> The Jews disagree with you on this.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/isaiah53/isaiah-53-in-53-seconds/
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > if Isaiah 53 is talking about the nation Israel then when was Israel pierced
>>
>> > for our sins? who can speak of his descendants? Israel has descendents.when
>>
>> > was Israel assigned a grave with the wicked = the rich in his death? its very
>>
>> > clear this is talking about Jesus,not Israel.only in this chapter is the
>>
>> > servert called he.
>>
>>
>>
>> Like I say, the Jews disagree with you.
>
> and have have debunked what they say,of course you ignored this.

No, sorry, you didn't. You offered your opinion, with no supporting evidence.

> As well, you have to provide, first,
>>
>> some kind of evidence that Jesus even actually existed
>
>
> oh please this is desperate skepticism,name one historian that doesn't
> actually believe Jesus existed? we have eyewitness testimony from one of the
> gospels,

You can't use the bible as one of your supporting documents, that's what's
currently under scritiny to see if it's accurate. This is like asking a murder
suspect "Did you kill the person", and when they say "No" you say "Well, there
you have it; eyewitness testimony that this suspect didn't do it!".

> we have the record of Josephus.

Suspected forgery, and certainly hearsay.

> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most
> biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his
> non-existence as effectively refuted.[1][3][4][5][6][7] In antiquity, the
> existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.Graham
> Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not,
> accept that Jesus existed.A number of ancient non-Christian documents, such
> as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of
> the existence of Jesus.[35] These include the works of 1st century Roman
> historians Josephus and Tacitus.[35][36] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman
> has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to
> Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of
> scholars.[37][38][39][40] Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus
> and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources,
> including Josephus and Tacitus.[41]The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus
> and reflect the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or
> magician.[42][43][44][45] Other possible references to Jesus and his
> execution may exist in the Talmud, but they also aim to discredit his
> actions, not deny his
> existence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Existence_and_location

For the record, I suspect that there was probably a Jewish cleric by the name
of Yeshua wandering around during the time period in question, stirring up
trouble. I'm even willing to cede that, as a troublemaker, he might have been
put to death by the Romans. I reject utterly the assertions that he was the
Son of God, or that he performed any miracles. There's simply *no* evidence,
outside the stories in the Bible, that these actually occurred. As for proving
that, for a slam-dunk, iron-clad *fact* that he existed, well, that's a
different story. Look at the wording above: it's very specific: "Today nearly
all historians, whether Christians or not, *accept* that Jesus existed." 1)
acceptance of something is different from something being established as a
fact. You may make the claim that you had wheaties this morning for breakfast,
and I may *accept* your claim, since there's no harm in granting that you had
wheaties, even if in *fact* you had cornflakes. 2) This is only accepting that
a human being who roughly fits the Jesus character of the bible may have
existed. It's NOT accepting that ALL claims made by the bible are true.

> , which is tenuous at
>>
>> best, then even IF you manage to prove he existed, you've still got a lot of
>> work to do to prove he was the Son of God, since so far, you haven't managed to
>> provide any evidence that God exists.
>
>
> what exactly do you mean by evidence +in what way are you using the word God?
> lets first get our
> definitions,assuming you are really interested in a serious conversation on this subject.

Hold on there, Maggsy. I'm an atheist, remember? I don't *believe* in the
claims of theists that a God exists. It's not up to me to define God; I'm not
asserting he exists.

If you want to talk about the God you claim exists, it's up to YOU to define
what this creature is, and how he interacts with reality. Please do so, and
then I'll examine your claims.

--
(` |) | Any sufficiently advanced technology
_) |) | is indistinguishable from magic.
a.a #2171 | -- Arthur C. Clarke

[sbalneav]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 19:50:58 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:25:36 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > according to Malachy the next Pope is the last one.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I doubt it, unfortunately.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > like probably most of you I'm hoping he is.i don't actaully have much faith
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > in prophecies,they have a poor record,Nostradamus for example in 1999.only
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > the Bible has a good record on prophecy,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Sure, if you write the later bits saying they fulfilled the earlier bits.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > so you think the gospels are just made up? there is no evidence for
>>
>> > this,infact the evidence points to them being written by an eyewitness+Luke's
>>
>> > gospel was written after he had researched + talked to those concerned.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Gospels weren't written until a minimum of 40 years after Christ's supposed
>>
>> execution.
>
>
> we have an eyewitness desription of Jesus crucifiction.there is nothing supposed about it,name a historian that does not believe it?

What's your source for this? Cite it, please. You can't use the bible; that's
what we're trying to prove. It's like trying to prove someone didn't kill
someone, and saying "We have an eyewitness: the accused!", and the accused
says: "Yup, I was there, and I didn't kill him!". You need INDEPENDENT
corroboration.

> They were written by anonymous authors and in NO INSTANCES do we
>>
>> have the originals;
>
>
>
> if the church had wanted to make up authors for the gospels they would not
> have picked Luke,Mark+Matthew,two of who were not even disciples,they would
> have picked Peter+James who were two of the closest disciples to Jesus.

Pure speculation.

>> at best we have 3rd or 4th generation copies.
>
> Have the Gospel texts been corrupted or altered over time?

Yes. Many of the so called "Apocraphyl Gospels" were elected not to be
included by the Church, and just LOOK at how many ENGLISH translations there
are, let alone any other languages:

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

<snip article on accuracy>

> http://www.dartmouthapologia.org/articles/show/85

I'd be more than happy to grant that the texts, from their earliest history,
may have been accurately copied. That's irrelevant to the point as to WHO
authored them, and if that authorship is who we attribute it to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible#Gospels_and_Acts

As for eyewitness accounts: as someone who works around lawyers, I can tell you
that eyewitness testimony is considered to be the LEAST reliable, as compared
to scientific evidence. Eyewitnesses can forget. Eyewitnesses can
hallucinate. Eyewitnesses can out-and-out right lie.

--
(` |) | The question is not, Can they reason?
_) |) | nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
a.a #2171 | -- Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) on animal rights

[sbalneav]

Utter nonsense;

http://skepdic.com/nostrada.html

--
(` |) | It is folly for a man to pray to the gods for that
_) |) | which he has the power to obtain by himself.
a.a #2171 | -- Epicurus, 341-270 BCE

[Smiler]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:19:45 -0700, Maggsy wrote:

> On Monday, 11 March 2013 00:16:25 UTC, Smiler wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:06:36 -0700, Maggsy wrote:
>> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 19:26:39 UTC, Burkhard wrote:

>> >> On Mar 10, 6:16�pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Read what I wrote: "you chose the option that fits your beliefs.". Where
did I claim that you're MAKING it fit your beliefs?

> could as i say it could be either,its something i
> would have to study more to be sure.words can have different meaning
> depending on context.

That _would_ be making it fit your beliefs.

>
> without a single scrap of evidence.
>
> i could say the same to you about your baseless assertions,but it wont
> stop you posting them.

So post your evidence for this supposed Jesus character.

>
>> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
>
>
>
> if those Holy Books are based on eyewitness testimony

Name those eye witnesses and show their independent testimony, otherwise
it's merely hearsay. Anyone can write anything in their unevidenced book
of fiction.

> like the gospel of John is ,then yes they are evidence

John is attributed to the apostle, John, but there's no evidence that it
was written by anyone called John, and in fact, it's unlikely to have been
written by anyone who lived at the same time as the supposed Jesus.

> +Luke gospel was written after he had done careful research into the
> events,

Evidence? Not from the book it's claimed he wrote.

> so that gospel is also evidence

By your argument, the King Kong movie is evidence of King Kong's
existence. In it, you can even see the faces of the eye witnesses as they
scream and run away in fear of King Kong.

> ,they being Holy books or not is irrelevant

Indeed. Fiction is fiction, whatever one calls it.

[walksalone]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fcfa324d-d775-4bc2...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 19:54:40 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:25:36 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

snip

>> some kind of evidence that Jesus even actually existed


> oh please this is desperate skepticism,name one historian that doesn't
> actually believe Jesus existed? we have eyewitness testimony from one
> of the gospels,we have the record of Josephus.

No, you don't. What you have is claimed eyewitness testimony. It is a
well known genre of literature known as psuedographia. Using the name of
another to provide a sense of authority. But then, that's not part of your
self education.

> Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,

Nice weasel word there. Viurtually, does that mean anything like a virtual
drive? I think it might in this case.
Are there scholars of standing in academia that believe there was a
historical Jesus? Maybe not as many as you hope for.
One example, an ex-evangical named Bart D. Erhman thinks there may be, but
it is not based on historical ecvidence.
Yet his writings indicate that xianity is a chimera invented by humans.
I woluldn't bother reading his works were I you.

> and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories
> of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[1][3][4][5][6][7] In

You realiose, you are not argueing with like minded people, or do you.
Wiki is fine for a starting point, but it is, by itself, no more than an
appeal to aurthority. Usually unfounded authority.
The facts speak for themselves, & when words like if creep into the
conversation, the exchange of information is over in any serious sense of
the word.

> antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who
> opposed Christianity.Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all
> historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed.A
> number of ancient non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and

Who is he, & why does it matter what he says? Seriously, if you can 't
sing the entire song, don't try to impress others by humming the first four
notes.

> Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the
> existence of Jesus.[35] These include the works of 1st century Roman
> historians Josephus and Tacitus.[35][36] Josephus scholar Louis H.

Neither of whom were contemporary.
Jesoephus was born after bubba J, & serious historiuans hold iot was a
forgery, aka pious insertion. The culprit appears to Esubus, & no church
father quotes the passages prior to him. Hard to believe when they do
quote him. & BTW, there are other problems with his writings. Not
germaine to this conversation, but still, they are there.
Now Tacitus, well what can be said. IIRC Nero was inAn tioch at a Lute
festival when the big burn went down. There are some scholars who beliee
it was set by xians in order to hurry the apocalypse. A serious
possibility given the nature of the myth & it's end times philosophy.
Not to mention, linguistis, a discipline like archaeology that was
supported to prove the Greek Testaments, & in addition, the Hebrew Bible,
says the passages are likely to be another forgery, from the fourteenth
century.
Not to mention that by todays standards, Tacitus would be a gossipmonger.
Not to mention, historians of the era, not to be confused with historians
of our era, do not mention this. One would expect Suetonius to have
written long and hard about that. But it is missing.

> Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of
> Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only
> disputed by a small number of scholars.[37][38][39][40] Bart D. Ehrman
> states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans
> is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and
> Tacitus.[41]The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus and reflect the
> early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or
> magician.[42][43][44][45] Other possible references to Jesus and his
> execution may exist in the Talmud, but they also aim to discredit his
> actions, not deny his

Again, you are using a fallacy of appealing to perceived authority.
You are appealing to two discreditied sources, & those that agree wioth
them.

What you need to do is find early church fathers, from Saul to the founding
of xianity as the official religion of the Empire, that support your
position.
Fact, early church fathers never treat the Jesus myth as involving a living
Jesus.

> existence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Existence_a
> nd_location

Ah, a battle of dueling websites challange has bee isued, let it be so.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
<http://www.exminister.org/Barker-debunking-historical-Jesus.html>

I see your appeal to authority & raise you by one [of many possibilities].

> , which is tenuous at
>> best, then even IF you manage to prove he existed, you've still got a
>> lot of
>> work to do to prove he was the Son of God, since so far, you haven't
>> managed to
>> provide any evidence that God exists.

> what exactly do you mean by evidence +in what way are you using the
> word God? lets first get our

Evidence, that's what is left after the smoke & mirrors are removed.
Now this you are not likekly able to entertaion but, here is some of the
evidence that xianity can not provide to back its bogus claims.

Contemporary historians/popular writers. None known, or shown. Many texts
were liklely to have been reused by early xian fanatics as they speard the
word, others likely rotted by now.
No miracles associated with the fictious Buba J verified.
No star of Bethlehem, though there are many attemptsd to show it could have
existed as claimed. Some of them rather high dollar.
No activity at the claimed crucifixtion has left evidence. Neither among
contemporary writers, visiting merchants, occupational forces, no one saw
fit to mention to anyone else the miracles� of the big farewell.

> definitions,assuming you are really interested in a serious

There is no chance of a serious discussion with a true believer. There is
a chance of serious discussion with a believer that wants to know. Your
postings have excluded you fromn that group.

> conversation on this subject.

I am, but you are not. Protestations on your part are not evidence of a
desire for serious duiscussions. But they are indicative of your firm
belief that you are right & others are wrong.

You see, you don't even know what your myth, & its foundational documents
present, but only what you have been told is truth.

The truely sad thing, your version of xianity is not even close to the
xianity of the early xians. It has been so convulted that it is no lionger
xianity, but xianity Inc.

walksalone who has a serious interest in the mythologies of the world, &
how they came into existence. Which is different from wating to believe
any of them. It's that laka thing.
Laka need.
Laka evidence.

Eulogy
by Bill Barnes

God died today in the heart of another man.
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust,
And in this soil a seed is planted.

God died today in the mind of another woman.
The black dirt, the moist earth,
>From this new garden, wisdom grows.

I was always taught that God died that I might live.
I never realized how true this was.
His death nourishes the seeds of wisdom, happiness, and freedom.

This is a eulogy, a benediction.
I am saddened by my loss,
But know a better life is ahead of me.

Love and hate marked this relationship.
I loved this mythical invisible father.
I hated the crotchety old judge.

Like the battered child,
Who still loves their parents,
I am glad he's gone, but I still miss him.

The new garden I have has wonderful plants,
But I must pull weeds of doubt and guilt,
It's my responsibility now.

As a child must grow and leave the safety of home,
I have grown and left the eternal security of heaven.
I have outgrown my god, and laid him to rest

[hypa...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, March 9, 2013 3:59:32 PM UTC-5, Maggsy wrote:
> according to Malachy the next Pope is the last one.like probably most of you I'm hoping he is.i don't actaully have much faith in prophecies,they have a poor record,Nostradamus for example in 1999.only the Bible has a good record on prophecy, Isaiah 53 for example.Peter the Roman is supposed to be the next Pope,there is infact a Peter amongst one of the favorites to become Pope,but i don't think he's Roman.i will be watching with interest any way,odds on its another failed prophecy.

I'm sure you will, fastnag.

[hypa...@gmail.com]

When someone calling themselves Maggsy posted several months ago, someone in the ng found out that he was fastnag. Judging from the length of his messages,
it's probably fastnag again.

[hypatiab7]

On Mar 11, 3:04 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 19:50:58 UTC, sbalneav  wrote:

> > Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:25:36 UTC, sbalneav  wrote:
>

Maggsy is fastnag. He posted under that name several months ago and
someone in the ng identified him.
You can tell by the way his messages keep getting longer and longer
but he actually says nothing.

[Dakota]

Reading the Gospel's descriptions, it's easy to conclude that the
authors attended different crucifixions. Was there a 'good' thief?
What were the main character's last words?

[sbalneav]

Certainly, I'm not sure maggsy is who he represents he is, since his news
posting host, from the headers, is albasani.net, which appears to be German,
and he was claiming to be British. Although, with the EU these days, who
knows...

sbalneav@phobos$ whois albasani.net

<snip>

owner-id: 19357
owner-name: Alexander Bartolich
owner-street: Grundstrasse 44c
owner-city: Neuhofen
owner-zip: 4501
owner-country: AT
owner-phone: +43 7227 4117
owner-email: alexander...@gmx.at

But so far, fartnob posts from the Land of Oz, or associated servers. Is it
possible he applied for an account in Deutchland Uber Alles for an elaborate
ruse to make himself look foolish in aam and then disappear like a fart in the
wind? Possibly, but it seems unlikely.

I think this maggsy was just someone who didn't think his arguments through
very well. FailedNuts doesn't actually HAVE an argument, this fellow was
putting one forward, at least, it was just very poorly reasoned.

--
(` |) | If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that
_) |) | simple statement is the key to science.
a.a #2171 | -- Richard Feynmann

[Smiler]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:39:38 +0000, sbalneav wrote:

> hypa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, March 11, 2013 5:27:24 PM UTC-4, sbalneav wrote:
>>> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 19:50:58 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>>> >> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

AFAIA, albasani.net doesn't operate as an ISP in the UK, but that doesn't
stop him subscribing, to get their services, via his UK ISP. The other
alternative is that he's a Brit living in Germany.

<snip>

>
> But so far, fartnob posts from the Land of Oz, or associated servers. Is
> it possible he applied for an account in Deutchland Uber Alles for an
> elaborate ruse to make himself look foolish in aam and then disappear
> like a fart in the wind? Possibly, but it seems unlikely.

Agreed.

[Maggsy]

On Monday, 11 March 2013 22:07:12 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 19:54:40 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:25:36 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > according to Malachy the next Pope is the last one.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> I doubt it, unfortunately.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > like probably most of you I'm hoping he is.i don't actaully have much faith
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > in prophecies,they have a poor record,Nostradamus for example in 1999.only
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > the Bible has a good record on prophecy,
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Sure, if you write the later bits saying they fulfilled the earlier bits.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > Isaiah 53 for example.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> The Jews disagree with you on this.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/isaiah53/isaiah-53-in-53-seconds/
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > if Isaiah 53 is talking about the nation Israel then when was Israel pierced
>
> >>
>
> >> > for our sins? who can speak of his descendants? Israel has descendents.when
>
> >>
>
> >> > was Israel assigned a grave with the wicked = the rich in his death? its very
>
> >>
>
> >> > clear this is talking about Jesus,not Israel.only in this chapter is the
>
> >>
>
> >> > servert called he.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Like I say, the Jews disagree with you.
>
> >
>
> > and have have debunked what they say,of course you ignored this.
>
>
>
> No, sorry, you didn't. You offered your opinion, with no supporting evidence.

my supporting evidence was that it was clear that the Isaiah 53 prophecy in no way has been fulfilled by the nation of israel,but does fit very well with the life+death of Jesus,you of course ignored this.

>
>
>
> > As well, you have to provide, first,
>
> >>
>
> >> some kind of evidence that Jesus even actually existed
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > oh please this is desperate skepticism,name one historian that doesn't
>
> > actually believe Jesus existed? we have eyewitness testimony from one of the
>
> > gospels,
>
>
>
> You can't use the bible as one of your supporting documents, that's what's
>
> currently under scritiny to see if it's accurate.

the Bible is made up of 66 different books written by different ppl over thousands of years.,its not one book. what you are trying to say is you can't bring all the witnesses together put them in one book+then have them corroborate each other,you can do that.

This is like asking a murder
>
> suspect "Did you kill the person", and when they say "No" you say "Well, there
>
> you have it; eyewitness testimony that this suspect didn't do it!".

as usual you ppl make silly comparisons.the witnesses are luke who did careful research+John who was an eyewitness to the events of Jesus life.

>
>
>
> > we have the record of Josephus.
>
>
>
> Suspected forgery, and certainly hearsay.

so you say.this part of Josephus that talks about Jesus is in no way considered a forgery by anyone .and is no more hearsay that any other part of Josephus.or any other ancient historical writer.And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned

>
>
>
> > Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most
>
> > biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his
>
> > non-existence as effectively refuted.[1][3][4][5][6][7] In antiquity, the
>
> > existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.Graham
>
> > Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not,
>
> > accept that Jesus existed.A number of ancient non-Christian documents, such
>
> > as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of
>
> > the existence of Jesus.[35] These include the works of 1st century Roman
>
> > historians Josephus and Tacitus.[35][36] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman
>
> > has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to
>
> > Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of
>
> > scholars.[37][38][39][40] Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus
>
> > and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources,
>
> > including Josephus and Tacitus.[41]The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus
>
> > and reflect the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or
>
> > magician.[42][43][44][45] Other possible references to Jesus and his
>
> > execution may exist in the Talmud, but they also aim to discredit his
>
> > actions, not deny his
>
> > existence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Existence_and_location
>
>
>
> For the record, I suspect that there was probably a Jewish cleric by the name
>
> of Yeshua wandering around during the time period in question, stirring up
>
> trouble. I'm even willing to cede that, as a troublemaker, he might have been
>
> put to death by the Romans. I reject utterly the assertions that he was the
>
> Son of God, or that he performed any miracles. There's simply *no* evidence,

thats because you reject the evidence in the gospels with out good reason.

>
> outside the stories in the Bible, that these actually occurred. As for proving
>
> that, for a slam-dunk, iron-clad *fact* that he existed, well, that's a
>
> different story. Look at the wording above: it's very specific: "Today nearly
>
> all historians, whether Christians or not, *accept* that Jesus existed." 1)
>
> acceptance of something is different from something being established as a
>
> fact.

is it? its accepted by most ppl the earth is round,its accepted by most ppl we landed on the moon,you will always get some desperate skeptics who don't believe no matter how much evidence there is.

You may make the claim that you had wheaties this morning for breakfast,
>
> and I may *accept* your claim, since there's no harm in granting that you had
>
> wheaties, even if in *fact* you had cornflakes.

you are making silly comparisons again. i could of course be lying about the wheaties,but if some one put a gun to my head+i still said wheaties,then the evidence would be alot more compelling that i was telling the truth,this is what the disciples did,most died still saying they saw Jesus alive.

2) This is only accepting that
>
> a human being who roughly fits the Jesus character of the bible may have
>
> existed. It's NOT accepting that ALL claims made by the bible are true.

this at least would be a step in the right direction.

>
>
>
> > , which is tenuous at
>
> >>
>
> >> best, then even IF you manage to prove he existed, you've still got a lot of

i just did,now you are backtracking again.

>
> >> work to do to prove he was the Son of God, since so far, you haven't managed to

depends what you mean by prove? and in what way,ppl believe all kinds of things,but they cannot be proven 100%.

>
> >> provide any evidence that God exists.

what evidence do you want? scientific evidence? most things in this life cannot be proven that way,but it does not stop you believing in them.

>
> >
>
> >
>
> > what exactly do you mean by evidence +in what way are you using the word God?
>
> > lets first get our
>
> > definitions,assuming you are really interested in a serious conversation on this subject.
>
>
>
> Hold on there, Maggsy. I'm an atheist, remember?

are you,i don't remember you saying so+i would not make such an assumption.

I don't *believe* in the
>
> claims of theists that a God exists. It's not up to me to define God; I'm not
>
> asserting he exists.

it is up to you,you have to define what you mean by God when you say you don't believe in him,you must have some definition in mind when you think such a thing.

>
>
>
> If you want to talk about the God you claim exists, it's up to YOU to define
>
> what this creature is, and how he interacts with reality. Please do so, and
>
> then I'll examine your claims.

what does the word God mean to you? i want to know we are talking about the same entity,i've had these debates before only to find out we are not even talking about the same thing,i'm not wasting my time on that again.

[sbalneav]

Seeing as how I don't accept the bible as evidence for anything, of course I
ignored it; the bible is what we're trying to prove.

>> > As well, you have to provide, first,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> some kind of evidence that Jesus even actually existed
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > oh please this is desperate skepticism,name one historian that doesn't
>>
>> > actually believe Jesus existed? we have eyewitness testimony from one of the
>>
>> > gospels,
>>
>>
>>
>> You can't use the bible as one of your supporting documents, that's what's
>>
>> currently under scritiny to see if it's accurate.
>
>
> the Bible is made up of 66 different books written by different ppl over thousands of years.,its not one book. what you are trying to say is you can't bring all the witnesses together put them in one book+then have them corroborate each other,you can do that.

Again, I don't accept the claims of the bible.

> This is like asking a murder
>>
>> suspect "Did you kill the person", and when they say "No" you say "Well, there
>>
>> you have it; eyewitness testimony that this suspect didn't do it!".
>
>
>
> as usual you ppl make silly comparisons.the witnesses are luke who did careful research+John who was an eyewitness to the events of Jesus life.

Oh? Where did you read about luke and john?

>> > we have the record of Josephus.
>>
>>
>>
>> Suspected forgery, and certainly hearsay.
>
>
> so you say.

So do a lot of scholars.

> this part of Josephus that talks about Jesus is in no way considered a forgery by anyone .

What are you talking about?

http://books.google.ca/books?id=eZUlAQAAIAAJ&q=isbn:9780820452418&dq=isbn:9780820452418&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rAJEUa23Euj_2QW3yYC4CA&redir_esc=y

It was publically denounced as a forgery since the sixteenth friggin' century.

Incorrect; my reason for rejecting them is: there's no evidence to suggest that
the bible is a trustworthy source on any of it's supernatural claims.

>>
>> outside the stories in the Bible, that these actually occurred. As for proving
>>
>> that, for a slam-dunk, iron-clad *fact* that he existed, well, that's a
>>
>> different story. Look at the wording above: it's very specific: "Today nearly
>>
>> all historians, whether Christians or not, *accept* that Jesus existed." 1)
>>
>> acceptance of something is different from something being established as a
>>
>> fact.
>
>
> is it? its accepted by most ppl the earth is round,

Of course, it isn't. It's an oblate spheroid.

> its accepted by most ppl we landed on the moon,you will always get some desperate skeptics who don't believe no matter how much evidence there is.

It was also accepted that the sun went around the earth. Evidence can be
*misinterpreted*.

> You may make the claim that you had wheaties this morning for breakfast,
>>
>> and I may *accept* your claim, since there's no harm in granting that you had
>>
>> wheaties, even if in *fact* you had cornflakes.
>
>
> you are making silly comparisons again. i could of course be lying about the wheaties,but if some one put a gun to my head+i still said wheaties,then the evidence would be alot more compelling that i was telling the truth,this is what the disciples did,most died still saying they saw Jesus alive.

Oh? Where'd you get that from?

> 2) This is only accepting that
>>
>> a human being who roughly fits the Jesus character of the bible may have
>>
>> existed. It's NOT accepting that ALL claims made by the bible are true.
>
>
> this at least would be a step in the right direction.

I've stated in the past that I have no problem ceding that a normal, ordinary
human being, born of the good old fashioned way of a man and a woman gettin'
their freak on, and called Yeshua, was walkin' around the holy land blathering
a lot of apocalyptic doom and gloom. This character was probably the basis for
the Jesus myth.

>> > , which is tenuous at
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> best, then even IF you manage to prove he existed, you've still got a lot of
>
>
> i just did,now you are backtracking again.

Scott: "There's no incontrovertable evidence that Jesus existed."
Maggsy: "JOSEPHUS!"
Scott: "Been refuted since the 16th century."
Maggsy: "John! LUUUUUUKE!"
Scott: "In the bible. That's what we're debating the truth of, you can't offer
what the bible says as proof that what the bible says is true."
Maggsy: "WWWHHHHHEEEEEEAAATIES and GUNS!"
Scott: "I'm willing to cede that a non-supernatural human named Jesus may have
existed, and his teaching may have formed the core of the Jesus myth,
but it's not proof he was the son of God, or that God exists."
Maggsy: "I just proved Jesus exists!"
Scott: *sigh*.

>> >> work to do to prove he was the Son of God, since so far, you haven't managed to
>
>
> depends what you mean by prove? and in what way,ppl believe all kinds of things,but they cannot be proven 100%.

Provide evidence, then.

>> >> provide any evidence that God exists.
>
>
> what evidence do you want? scientific evidence?

Yes. If he exists, and affects things here on earth, composed of Baryonic
matter, there will be evidence of his affecting things.

> most things in this life cannot be proven that way,but it does not stop you believing in them.

Oh? Since most things are that way, name some of them.

>> > what exactly do you mean by evidence +in what way are you using the word God?
>>
>> > lets first get our
>>
>> > definitions,assuming you are really interested in a serious conversation on this subject.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hold on there, Maggsy. I'm an atheist, remember?
>
>
> are you,i don't remember you saying so+i would not make such an assumption.

I am an atheist. I do not believe in a God or gods.

> I don't *believe* in the
>>
>> claims of theists that a God exists. It's not up to me to define God; I'm not
>>
>> asserting he exists.
>
> it is up to you,you have to define what you mean by God when you say you don't believe in him,you must have some definition in mind when you think such a thing.

Nope. I've had people tell me before what their interpretation of God is, and
I haven't believed them. You have to tell me what YOUR interpretation is,
otherwise, if I say "Well, my understanding from theists is that God is X",
you'll just triumphantly shout "WELL THAT'S NOT HOW *I* SEE GOD". I've played
this game before. Every concept of God that's been put before me has been
lacking in evidence. I'll wait to hear your version before passing judgement.

>> If you want to talk about the God you claim exists, it's up to YOU to define
>> what this creature is, and how he interacts with reality. Please do so, and
>> then I'll examine your claims.
>
>
> what does the word God mean to you?

About the same thing as "Balrog" or "Sauron". A myth in a story, having no
basis in reality, since there's no evidence for this mythical creature
existing.

> i want to know we are talking about the same entity,i've had these debates before only to find out we are not even talking about the same thing,i'm not wasting my time on that again.

So go right ahead and define him. He's YOUR god, not mine.

--
(` |) | We buy books because we believe we're
_) |) | buying the time to read them.
a.a #2171 | -- Warren Zevon

[walksalone]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:23e821b0-98cd-47f4...@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, 11 March 2013 22:07:12 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 19:54:40 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>> >> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:25:36 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>> >> >> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

snip excess verbosity & tail wagging/chaseing.

>> >> >> http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/isaiah53/isaiah-53-in-53-seconds/

snip

>> >> Like I say, the Jews disagree with you.
>> > and have have debunked what they say,of course you ignored this.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, sorry, you didn't. You offered your opinion, with no supporting
>> evid
> ence.
>
>
>
> my supporting evidence was that it was clear that the Isaiah 53
> prophecy in no way has been fulfilled by the nation of israel,but does
> fit very well with the life+death of Jesus,you of course ignored this.

The Jewish prieasthood laughs at you.

>From the messiah texts.

In that hour in which the Son of Man was named
In the presence of the Lord of Spirits-
And his name is Head of Days-
Ere the sun and the signs were created,
Ere the stars of heaven were made,
His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.
1 Enoch 48 :2-3
Some say: 'Menahem son of Hezekiah is his name" and
The rabbis say: The Leprous of the House of Study is his name, as
it is said: .Verily, he batb borne our diseases , and our pains揺e
carried them,and we thought him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted
Isa 53:4. . Rav said: "If he is of those who live [today], then he is
like our Holy Master rabi Y'huda the Prince], and if he is of those
who have died, then he is like Daniel the beloved man." (B. Sanh. 98b)

But then, you can't accept that. You old atheist you.

snip

>> currently under scritiny to see if it's accurate.

> the Bible is made up of 66 different books written by different ppl

Depends on which verion you are using. Seems like you are using one of
the variants [over 100] based on the RCC bible.
IIRC, the Etheopian versikon has 70 mbooks. Which I suppose means, it is
more holy than your version.

> over thousands of years.,its not one book. what you are trying to say

According to xians it is. But you are correct, it is an anthology. Not
even well written. You might try a book called
The Making of the Legend of the Jewish People.
Seems historically, they aren't. Those claimig the Jewish religion
however, are.

> is you can't bring all the witnesses together put them in one
> book+then have them corroborate each other,you can do that.

Yet, it doesn't in the case of either the Hebrew Biblke or Greek
Testament. Don't worry, you have a reach around. You can interpolate
the pasages & makle them say things that aren't there. Bit like an acid
head tripping & trying to conduct serious research at the same time.

snip

> as usual you ppl make silly comparisons.the witnesses are luke who did
> careful research+John who was an eyewitness to the events of Jesus
> life.

But Luke was written by an unkown author, as are all the gospels. They
are named after the claimed apostles to give them authority. It is a
well known propaganda technique.

But that is not unique to the Greek Testaments, the first known aurthor
in the Hebrew Text is ben Sidrah. Yoiu will need to study to find out
why.

snip Joesephus reference.

>> Suspected forgery, and certainly hearsay.
>
>
> so you say.this part of Josephus that talks about Jesus is in no way
> considered a forgery by anyone .and is no more hearsay that any other

You forgot to add, that is a believer. Those that study linguistics, a
disciplin strarted to prove the bible true, disagree with you. & I
'fess, it appears you haven't read the books yourself
Now, I admit Joesephus has the earmarks of a historical persona.
I admit he was born after your buuba was hung out to dry, against Roman
law or tradition.
I admit that at aprx. 90Gr. there wede practicing xians.
I admit that as a practicing Jew he could not have written the passage as
we have it today.
I submit you are ignorant of the evience you claim.

> part of Josephus.or any other ancient historical writer.And now
> Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as
> procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and
> bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was
> also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but
> upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought
> before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name
> was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation
> against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned

If you are refering to the brother of Jesus, that was the second most
popular of 1st. century Palestine [not Isreal]. The first, Joseph. For
women, Mary. All as translated into todays English.
BTW, this passage removes the required crucifixtion for bubba. One thatg
could not have happened according to Roman law & custom. But that would
require you to read & understand what you have read. & that would
conflict with your belikefs. I doubt you are that honest. Most people
aren't when it comes to what they believe. & ulnlike Carl Sagan, most
people want to believe & not know.

>> > Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
>> > existed, an
> d most

No, the serious scholars, bibical, historical, don't appear to do so. &
nameing one that does, does not represent a majority.

snip excursion to fantasy Island.

>> For the record, I suspect that there was probably a Jewish cleric by
>> the
> name
>> of Yeshua wandering around during the time period in question,
>> stirring up trouble. I'm even willing to cede that, as a
troublemaker, he might have been put to death by the Romans. I reject
utterly the assertions that he was the Son of God, or that he performed

any miracles. There's simply *no* evideince,

Erm, this is for the other paticipant.
You may well be right that the legend starts witha real perason, say ben
Kobba. But, the religious troublemakers weren't bumped off. They were
flogged according to some research.
To be crucified, required one of two, three after Julie baby, things.
Any one would do the job.

A rebel against Rome.
A rebel or killer slkave.

After Julie.
A sea pirate.

Slav es were sold, & criminals became slaves. Why waste teh labor, there
weren't that many people to spare & the mines, so to speeak, always
needed labor. Slav ery was a common sentence back then

> thats because you reject the evidence in the gospels with out good
> reason.

There iks a reason & you an't accept it. Your version of reality 101
does not accept or permit actual historical evidence. For if it did, you
would know you were living a lie. You might not like that.

>> outside the stories in the Bible, that these actually occurred. As
>> for proving that, for a slam-dunk, iron-clad *fact* that he existed,
well, that's a different story. Look at the wording above: it's very

specific: "Today n early all historians, whether Christians or not,

*accept* that Jesus existed." 1)
>>
>> acceptance of something is different from something being established
>> as a fact.

> is it? its accepted by most ppl the earth is round,its accepted by
> most ppl we landed on the moon,you will always get some desperate
> skeptics who don't believe no matter how much evidence there is.

There is a difference between your version of acceptance, & acceptance
based on evidcence. An other thing you will continue to avoid. Siubc
ionciously I suspect. You have no choice.

snip

>> wheaties, even if in *fact* you had cornflakes.

> you are making silly comparisons again. i could of course be lying
> about the wheaties,but if some one put a gun to my head+i still said
> wheaties,then the evidence would be alot more compelling that i was
> telling the truth,this is what the disciples did,most died still
> saying they saw Jesus alive.

Not real;ly, there are strains of people that would say anything in spite
of the evidence or circumstances. B ut there is, I admit, no practical
difference between the Jewish gods, the xian gods, & bravido in claiming
that you had wheaties for breakfast. Even though to do so means certain
physical death. B ut isn't that what xians wan t, to get out of thiks
world?
Cowards, every one that claims that. If it were really true, suicide
would be the most popular form of worship, just like it was in the early
church days. Alas, they were running out of worshippers, so martydom was
declaed a sin, one that is not found in rfeading the HBebrew or Greek
text. It's one of those interpolation thingies. Do you nee the passage
reference?

>> 2) This is only accepting that
>> a human being who roughly fits the Jesus character of the bible may
>> have existed. It's NOT accepting that ALL claims made by the bible
are
>> true.


> this at least would be a step in the right direction.

There is no practic al reason to dolubt te myth was based on some factual
information. After all, it's a credibility issue.

snip

>> >> best, then even IF you manage to prove he existed, you've still
>> >> got a
> lot of

> i just did,now you are backtracking again.

Did whjat, other than assert & be pretensious?

>> >> work to do to prove he was the Son of God, since so far, you
>> >> haven't managed to

> depends what you mean by prove? and in what way,ppl believe all kinds
> of things,but they cannot be proven 100%.

Indeed. Now, you won't believe this, but some people believe there was a
mystic named Jesus that was not only real, but after the incorporation of
their myth into Roman law, is a god. Fabcy that.

>> >> provide any evidence that God exists.

> what evidence do you want? scientific evidence? most things in this
> life cannot be proven that way,but it does not stop you believing in
> them.

If such a desperate for worshiuppers god were to exist, & be as powerful
as you pretend, you would know the answer. Only the god can provide
that, & yours has failed to do so for thousands of years.

snip

> I don't *believe* in the
>> claims of theists that a God exists. It's not up to me to define
>> God; I'm not asserting he exists.
>
>
>
> it is up to you,you have to define what you mean by God when you say
> you don't believe in him,you must have some definition in mind when
> you think such a thing.

Nice try at diverting the responsibility of the burden of proof. Another
failure of course. You made teh claim a god, specifically your god is
really & truely real. You chance to shine, but you prefer to duck like
the average xian coward that you are imitating.
Your pretension, your chance to be known as honest or a TLFJ, henefort a
typical kliar for jesus.

>> If you want to talk about the God you claim exists, it's up to YOU to
>> def
> ine
>>
>> what this creature is, and how he interacts with reality. Please do
>> so,
> and
>>
>> then I'll examine your claims.
>
>
> what does the word God mean to you? i want to know we are talking

That wasn't the question. Granted, you can't comprehend the question
because, well sad to say, you are mentally handicapped when this subject
comes up. The sad part, it's self induuced.

> about the same entity,i've had these debates before only to find out
> we are not even talking about the same thing,i'm not wasting my time
> on that again.

That's because you use a privatge version for bubba, big daddy, & spooky.
Terms you don't even understand, but by all the gods that never were, you
know you are right when it comes to the Ancient rervealed gods of the
desert.

Without a lot of detailed stiudy, the gods of humainty share one
characteristic, & only one is universal in application. They are
supernatural.

Beyond that, they may be or not be.

walksalone who has paid his dues in the sarch for the gods, & has to
admit, some of the offers are tempting. But the revealed gods of the
desert are the m ost morally bankrupt of the gods, which includes those
like Lilith. Those that are claimed to be evil by the priesthoods of the
otehr gods.

What is a god, a short & incomplete list.

Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other
divinities of the human species. [Incomplete]

Anthropomorphic
A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]
B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the
Greek pantheon as an example]
C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny.
D: May or may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are
concerned.
E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a
victim of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of these
types of gods.]
Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are,
lessor gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less powerful
than others.
Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are
found in worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be
Nordic & Germanic in origin.
Fates: They are common to the classicalmyths as well as the European
ones.
Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything from
Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red Hat, are
not.
Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the world, they
are not necessary known to have god like powers as most understand the
term.
Gods & goddesses: I hope this class does not need more explanation.
Spirits: are all supernatural, even those that are the spirits of humans
or animals that have not went on to where good spirits are entitled to
go.
Animistic, all living creatures, including plant life Astral/solar All
heavenly
bodies

[Rod]

That lies of a subtle nature are to be expected from Christians,
having been conned themselves into believing in a god who began
his existence as a canaanite diety just to find himself later
being worshiped by the Hebrews, who then merged his with two other
false gods, Yahweh the national god of Israel and Asherah his consort.







--
Usenet Christians do not impress
me...they present themselves as living
like dogs without so much as a dogs
decencies.....