Is Joseph the father of Jesus ?

[MacM]

Pragmatic

1 - Jesus Christ, a bastard concieved out of marraige by an engaged woman and her secret lover, or;

2 - Jesus Christ, concieved to a virgin by the Word of God?

ANS: Put on a scale of 1 to 10 under scientific scrutiny, logic and evidence one must conclude:


#1 gets a "0" and #2 gets a "10"

That makes Mary not only a whore but a damn good liar.


Suppose it were to happen again today. It wouldn't pass the laugh test.

 

[okinrus]

Some of the insults of Mary are appalling considering
that you do not know her.

Isaiah 7:14 says
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the
virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and
shall name him Immanuel"

"virgin" here could mean "young girl" but then
it wouldn't be too much of sign.

 

[edgar]

huh? What the crap....the underscore does the question mark and the question mark does the under score________

 

[MacM]

okinrus,

Some of the insults of Mary are appalling considering
that you do not know her.

ANS: Are we to assume you do? The Bible was written 300 years + after the fact. My comments are not directed personally at her but the fact that such a claim today would get you in line for a padded cell.

Isaiah 7:14 says
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the
virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and
shall name him Immanuel"

ANS: Hind sight makes for easy writing of folklore. The Bible is the work of misguided, unscientific minds.

"virgin" here could mean "young girl" but then
it wouldn't be too much of sign.

ANS: If God wanted to give a sign, he could have produced a son without gestation in Mary or the necessity of DNA to mix with Mary. Or was Jesus's DNA a mix or from God's petre dish?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by okinrus
Isaiah 7:14 says "Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and
shall name him Immanuel" "virgin" here could mean "young girl" but then it wouldn't be too much of sign.

When and to whom who was Isaiah speaking? The answer is the 8th century BCE and king Ahab of Judah. One would think that promising to give Ahab a sign scheduled to arrive centuries after Ahab's death would seem nonsensical even to the most gullible of fundamentalists. Apparently not.

For the rest, A Virgin-Birth Prophecy? by Kenneth E. Nahigian is worth reading.

 

[EvilPoet]

Isaiah 7:14-16

Two different translations:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." -Isaiah 7:14-16 (King James Version)


"Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of his own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. (By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey.) For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned." -Isaiah 7:14-16 (Hebrew-English Tanakh)

 

[okinrus]

ANS: Are we to assume you do? The Bible was written 300 years + after the fact. My comments are not directed personally at her but the fact that such a claim today would get you in line for a padded cell.

Well I was using know more in terms of "You do not
know exactly what Mary did". In fact you
would not even know Mary existed without the bible and then
to claim that parts of her story are correct but others
false is pure speculation. Though I do know her,
I'm not going to make the complete false claim
that I know her completely or that I know her son
completely. However here is a letter
from Ignatius. We know that she was held
in high regard, considering that Ignatius was
disciple of John and martyr.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/ignatius/igmary.htm

ANS: If God wanted to give a sign, he could have produced a son without gestation in Mary or the necessity of DNA to mix with Mary. Or was Jesus's DNA a mix or from God's petre dish?

Since Jesus was not created there was no mix of DNA.
Were also assuming here that Jesus has DNA.

ANS: Hind sight makes for easy writing of folklore. The Bible is the work of misguided, unscientific minds.

The bible fairs better than the supposed scientific
works of that time. Even modern history books
have inconsistancies and so on.

 

[MacM]

And

okinrus,

The bible fairs better than the supposed scientific
works of that time. Even modern history books
have inconsistancies and so on.

ANS: And the Bible is far overdue the same fate as historically bad science. I have no interest what-so-ever reading it or even debating it. It is a total loser.

 

[okinrus]

ANS: And the Bible is far overdue the same fate as historically bad science. I have no interest what-so-ever reading it or even debating it. It is a total loser.

You probably agree with most of the moral principles.
Even if your athiest this is flawed since most of society
is influenced by the bible. Also just because
a tale may be fictous does not mean it
does not have sound moral guidlines, for example
Romio and Juliet. I've read parts of the Quran and
parts of the book of Mormon. Though
some of the moral values we have in common, this does not
make me believe in it.

ANS: Are we to assume you do? The Bible was written 300 years + after the fact. My comments are not directed personally at her but the fact that such a claim today would get you in line for a padded cell.

This is untrue. The books were written between
50-70AD. However the books were only grouped
together as a canonical set in 325AD.

 

[Agent Smith]

Im curious, do most athiests ever question the vadility of science and logic taught at schools, and put in books? Athiests acuse christians of being illogical, believing in fairy tales etc. But how do they know that common teachings of science isnt wrong? Is it because it's validated every day through simple tasks?
Well samething is with the Bible. At first it may seem bizzare and totally out of whack. But if you keep studying it and use it's philosphy for everyday tasks, then it will make sense. You wont know it's true through the 5 senses, but you will feel it's all true. You can say all you want agaisnt that feeling because if you dont truly believe in GOD than you dont know how it is. You wont beable to comprehend it because it's not normal to you. You wil know the feeling once you get it though. In the bible it says that God is omnipotent. Well if GOD is all powerfull than nothing is impossible. God made the law's of phsyic's, life etc. So why cant GOD break them?





P

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Agent Smith
Well if GOD is all powerfull than nothing is impossible. God made the law's of phsyic's, life etc. So why cant GOD break them?

Actually, no reason at all. So, for the sake of argument, let's presume a Supernatural realm wholly unconstrained by the laws of physics and the constraints of parsimony and conservation. The problem then shifts to one of selection criteria. For example"

• Why God and not God(s)?
• Why YHWH and not Marduk or Kali?
• Why a personal God and not an impersonal God?
• Why an honest God rather than a deceitful God?
• Why a loving God rather than a malicious God?

All you have, all you have, is the quaint and arrogant assertion that your revelation is better than the alternatives. To make matter worse, in order to make such assertions, Christians must deny the circumstantial evidence provided by the textual history of the Bible which suggests, at every turn, that the Bible is the syncretic product of man rather than the revelation of Diety.

 

[okinrus]

Why God and not God(s)?

It is impossible to have more than one all powerful
God since their powers would conflict.

Why YHWH and not Marduk or Kali?

The meaning in hebrew is "I am".

Why a personal God and not an impersonal God?

W are created by Him. Your also assuming that
we have standard definitions for personal
and impersonal which we do not.

Why an honest God rather than a deceitful God?

Since we are created by God it is not inconcievable
that we would be instructed by him as to what is good
or pleasing to him. By his words was their creation and
so if he said and there was not it would be.

 

[Agent Smith]

All you have, all you have, is the quaint and arrogant assertion that your revelation is better than the alternatives

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by okinrus
It is impossible to have more than one all powerful
God since their powers would conflict.

The presumption of the supernatural does not necessitate omnipotence on the part of God or Gods. The concept of "one all powerful God" is simply another instance of you proclaiming that your revelation is better than the alternatives. You prove nothing but the poverty of your position - and your own foolishness.

Originally posted by okinrus
The meaning in hebrew is "I am".

That is both inaccurate and irrelevant. You're really not very good at this.

Originally posted by okinrus
W are created by Him. Your also assuming that we have standard definitions for personal and impersonal which we do not.

Drop the sophomoric drivel. Use whatever definition you wish, and then suggest a selection criteria for presuming one attribute and dismissing the other.

Originally posted by okinrus
Since we are created by God it is not inconcievable that we would be instructed by him as to what is good or pleasing to him.

I cannot tell whether you're being childishly dishonest or absurdly dense. The issue has little to do with what is or is not "inconceivable" to you. You obviously find the Judeo-Christian tale "conceivable". But are you truly suggesting that conceivability of the gullible stands as an adequate sellection criteria? There were those in the early history of Christianity who found an evil YHWH (the Demiurge) quite conceivable.

Originally posted by okinrus
By his words was their creation and so if he said and there was not it would be.

In other words: My revelation says that my revelation is better than your revelation!

 

[Agent Smith]

My revelation says that my revelation is better than your revelation!

quote:
There were those in the early history of Christianity who found an evil YHWH (the Demiurge) quite conceivable.

he's called satan.


quote:
Christians must deny the circumstantial evidence provided by the textual history of the Bible which suggests, at every turn, that the Bible is the syncretic product of man rather than the revelation of Diety.

Really?Please tell how they do so

 

[okinrus]

The presumption of the supernatural does not necessitate omnipotence on the part of God or Gods. The concept of "one all powerful God" is simply another instance of you proclaiming that your revelation is better than the alternatives. You prove nothing but the poverty of your position - and your own foolishness.

No I do not claim it is better, I proclaim it is true.

You're really not very good at this.

Your position cannot even give a definition of good.
You arrogantly assume that falsehood is bad right?
I don't speak hebrew but my translation of the bible
uses "I AM".
http://www.twinbridgescanoe.com/godsproperty/the_names_of_god.html

In other words: My revelation says that my revelation is better than your revelation!

You do not have relevation but one of emptyness.
Nor can you see or hear emptyness but it certainly
exist so we can honestly say by faith in yourself
you accept your own emptyness.

 

[MacM]

okinrus,

You probably agree with most of the moral principles.

ANS: I do indeed but not because the Bible says so, Infact I think my principles are higher than the conduct attributed to your omnipotent God.

What kind of wacko would create the entire universe and create the earth, a puny planet at the rim of one but billions of gallaxies, to put man (and woman), male and female of all forms of life, with the appendages and desire to copulate and then dare them to so do or face his rath.

What sort of wacko would in turn drown all forms of life because his creation didn't do what he wanted (PS: I thought he was all knowing, he didn't know how things would turn out?)

Make up your mind he either is all knowing or he isn't. IF he had the capacity to create all things surely he could have created it in all "Good" and without evil.

Oh, that's right I forgot he has an evil counter part, equal in his strength. All good things are God and all bad things are the Devil.

I stopped beliving in this babble about the same time I did in the tooth fairy, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. You should grow up as well.

Even if your athiest this is flawed since most of society
is influenced by the bible.

ANS: Enfluenced, Perhaps. But not necessarily for the better. Most hypocrites I know are Bible thumpers. The seduction of children by priest is only the tip of the iceberg.

Also just because
a tale may be fictous does not mean it
does not have sound moral guidlines

ANS: On this finite point we can agree but only as long as you present them as folklore or ficticous stories.


ANS:No I am not atheist. I am Deist.

 

[MacM]

Indeed

Agent Smith,

Well if GOD is all powerfull than nothing is impossible. God made the law's of phsyic's, life etc. So why cant GOD break them?

ANS: Lets start with some fairly easy questions about your omnipotent God:

1 - Did God create everything? If not then he isn't the only God.
If so then he had to create time and space, wouldn't you agree?


2 - OK. Where did God stand before he created time-space?


3 - In fact God had to create himself. From nothing God (non existant) creates himself where there is no time-space.

It does seem to me that there is something wrong with this picture.

Your Bible is unscientific babble my friend. And your God is I suspect non-existant.

 

[MacM]

Revelation

okinrus,

You do not have relevation but one of emptyness.
Nor can you see or hear emptyness but it certainly
exist so we can honestly say by faith in yourself
you accept your own emptyness.

ANS: Emptyness is Revelation. It is wholly unsupported conjecture, untested, untestable. Discovery however, is not emptyness and has and is continually being tested.

There is far greater comfort in understanding the universe than standing in awe and stupidity.

 

[okinrus]

ANS: Emptyness is Revelation. It is wholly unsupported conjecture, untested, untestable. Discovery however, is not emptyness and has and is continually being tested.

Relevation is having God, an angel or a demon speak to you etc.
But what is their to reveal about nothingness?

There is far greater comfort in understanding the universe than standing in awe and stupidity.

Religion and science are totally different fields. In one
we study eternal life and in the other we study dead matter.
It's not suprising that rules governing dead matter
are different than those of the spirit.