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 painsæºe
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