Sincere Question About Jesus

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]byukid wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]byukid wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]byukid wrote:
My belief is that Adam and all early prophets had a knowledge of Christ’s birth, including the virgin detail, thus, as they taught their children, the idea became corrupted and applied to several varied traditions.

Which is more likely? That several civilizations independently developed a myth, or that they inherited it from a common tradition more ancient than they? It’s debatable.[/quote]

Since the “pagan” myths predated Jesus, following your logic, there were many virgin births of “god-men” or, there were none. Which is it?[/quote]

The myths predated Jesus yes, but they had a common origin. Then, in these cultures either the rumor was promulgated about someone earlier, or was ascribed to some particularly ambitious men. [/quote]

Again, so I ask you; was there more than one virgin birth or none? And was Jesus’ “virgin birth” a result of perpetuating a myth?
[/quote]

You’re creating a false dilemma. There was one- Christ. The fact that he was prophesied in history and prefigured in myth by others doesn’t mean that all the prefiguration were real- they were relics of the corrupted, original truth taught by the most ancient prophet- Adam. It’s like a game of telephone switching from “There will be man born of a virgin” to “There was a man born of a virgin” across the ancient world. [/quote]

Dude dont take this debate into fantasy-oblivion. Its fine and dandy that you believe that Adam was the first human male, but if this is going to be a serious discussion its important not to state things with no merit. There is no empirical evidence what so ever that Adam was the first human, so dont use a argument based on that. Its kinda hard to take serious. I said earlier that you can make a similar argument with Ask in there, but offcourse that would be ridiculous becasue we all know that Ask is a myth and so is Adam.

Please stay real.

42

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]byukid wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]byukid wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]byukid wrote:
My belief is that Adam and all early prophets had a knowledge of Christ’s birth, including the virgin detail, thus, as they taught their children, the idea became corrupted and applied to several varied traditions.

Which is more likely? That several civilizations independently developed a myth, or that they inherited it from a common tradition more ancient than they? It’s debatable.[/quote]

Since the “pagan” myths predated Jesus, following your logic, there were many virgin births of “god-men” or, there were none. Which is it?[/quote]

The myths predated Jesus yes, but they had a common origin. Then, in these cultures either the rumor was promulgated about someone earlier, or was ascribed to some particularly ambitious men. [/quote]

Again, so I ask you; was there more than one virgin birth or none? And was Jesus’ “virgin birth” a result of perpetuating a myth?
[/quote]

You’re creating a false dilemma. There was one- Christ. The fact that he was prophesied in history and prefigured in myth by others doesn’t mean that all the prefiguration were real- they were relics of the corrupted, original truth taught by the most ancient prophet- Adam. It’s like a game of telephone switching from “There will be man born of a virgin” to “There was a man born of a virgin” across the ancient world. [/quote]

Dude dont take this debate into fantasy-oblivion. Its fine and dandy that you believe that Adam was the first human male, but if this is going to be a serious discussion its important not to state things with no merit. There is no empirical evidence what so ever that Adam was the first human, so dont use a argument based on that. Its kinda hard to take serious. I said earlier that you can make a similar argument with Ask in there, but offcourse that would be ridiculous becasue we all know that Ask is a myth and so is Adam.

Please stay real.[/quote]

Very good post.

43

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

From the sounds of it, you have an imagined persecution complex (claiming everyone hates Catholics - most people could give a shit), when in fact it would appear you have a anti-Semitic leaning. Nothing like persecuting while claiming persecution. [/quote]

Seriously?

Just when I start to think maybe I’m a little too harsh in my judgment of you, you pull out one of these.

Yeesh. [/quote]

Firstly, your arrogance precedes you if you think I need your approval. I don’t care one iota about your “judgment” of me.

BC has on more than one occasion posted about how Catholics are hated. Either I live in a cave (I just pitched under-handed to you, let’s see if you can take a grade school swing at it and it one to the outfield) or I’m unaware of such wide-spread specific hatred of Catholics. And finally, he just posted a reference in rebuttal to bible interpretation from a known holocaust denier with no credentials to even pen the article.

So yes…really.

44

[quote]byukid wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]byukid wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]byukid wrote:
My belief is that Adam and all early prophets had a knowledge of Christ’s birth, including the virgin detail, thus, as they taught their children, the idea became corrupted and applied to several varied traditions.

Which is more likely? That several civilizations independently developed a myth, or that they inherited it from a common tradition more ancient than they? It’s debatable.[/quote]

Since the “pagan” myths predated Jesus, following your logic, there were many virgin births of “god-men” or, there were none. Which is it?[/quote]

The myths predated Jesus yes, but they had a common origin. Then, in these cultures either the rumor was promulgated about someone earlier, or was ascribed to some particularly ambitious men. [/quote]

Again, so I ask you; was there more than one virgin birth or none? And was Jesus’ “virgin birth” a result of perpetuating a myth?
[/quote]

You’re creating a false dilemma. There was one- Christ. The fact that he was prophesied in history and prefigured in myth by others doesn’t mean that all the prefiguration were real- they were relics of the corrupted, original truth taught by the most ancient prophet- Adam. It’s like a game of telephone switching from “There will be man born of a virgin” to “There was a man born of a virgin” across the ancient world. [/quote]

LOL emkay.

Do you have a reference for the prophecy of Jesus from Adam? And you do realize that any scripture at all referencing Adam and/or Genesis is predated by the myths themselves. How would scripture be corrupted by that which preceded it? Or, lemme guess here; you don’t believe in evolution.

45

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

"Nowhere does the Bible predict that the Messiah will be born to a virgin.[/quote]

This is incorrect. If you look at the MT (which came after Jesus) manuscripts the Jews changed several verses from virgin to young girl. If you look at the Septuagint (which Jesus, the Apostles, and Hellenistic Jews used) it does plainly state that a Virgin will give birth to a Son.

Love the revisionist history. If you’re going to use such horrid source, I won’t bother commenting on the rest of it.[/quote]

With respect…not so fast!

First, where is the evidence that the Masoretes substituted whole words in the MT? Mistakes, haplographs, yes…but whole words?[/quote]

By Israel Adam Shamir
[A Talk at Rhodes Conference, 8-12 October 2009]…

[/quote]

None of this is news and none of it answers my points.

Let’s put aside the dubious authorship and purpose of that article cited. ( And I would not trust that particular author’s endorsement of a concocted 'H70.")

There is no question that the MT has errors–chiefly letter mistakes, repetitiions, a few elisions–but I do not know why you would presume that a whole word has been deliberately replaced by the Masoretes, with ample evidence to the contrary.
I understand that both the Septuagint and the MT are derived from a common ancestor, but you are reading a translation from the Greek translation of one–not “the”–text of the OT. If the Hellenized translators could not distinguish among the choices for “almah”–maid, maiden, young woman–and chose “virgin,” that choice may not fully aknowledge Isaiah’s purpose in using that word in distinction from the more common and established term for virgin girl, particularly in the limited context of Chapter 7.

Paul and the authors of the NT may have been far more familiar with the Greek translation or an Aramaic translation than with the Hebrew original, and thus the notions from the Greek Sept. resonate in the NT. But that preference does not make the MT less reliable that the Septuagint.

46

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
LOL emkay.

Do you have a reference for the prophecy of Jesus from Adam? And you do realize that any scripture at all referencing Adam and/or Genesis is predated by the myths themselves. How would scripture be corrupted by that which preceded it? Or, lemme guess here; you don’t believe in evolution. [/quote]

I clearly was not stating my position well. I am not saying that I have empirical hard evidence about this, what I’m trying to do is explain how I understand these common myths to have occurred. Obviously I’m not expecting you to believe right off the bat anything I say, but I’m presenting my line of thought.

Some scholars have pointed to the common origin theory for these myths- suggesting that either this event occurred (e.g. the flood and its cropping up in multiple cultures) or that this was a tradition which was passed along (e.g. the virgin birth). I give a name Adam but of course you don’t have to believe that, you can just believe however you’d like in light of your understanding of the evidence.

47

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

From the sounds of it, you have an imagined persecution complex (claiming everyone hates Catholics - most people could give a shit), when in fact it would appear you have a anti-Semitic leaning. Nothing like persecuting while claiming persecution. [/quote]

Seriously?

Just when I start to think maybe I’m a little too harsh in my judgment of you, you pull out one of these.

Yeesh. [/quote]

Firstly, your arrogance precedes you if you think I need your approval. I don’t care one iota about your “judgment” of me.

BC has on more than one occasion posted about how Catholics are hated. Either I live in a cave (I just pitched under-handed to you, let’s see if you can take a grade school swing at it and it one to the outfield) or I’m unaware of such wide-spread specific hatred of Catholics. And finally, he just posted a reference in rebuttal to bible interpretation from a known holocaust denier with no credentials to even pen the article.

So yes…really. [/quote]

You accused him of anti-semitism without any evidence is what you did.

48

The Gospel of Mark Chapter 1:14-15,

[quote]14-Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15-and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."[/quote]This is the closest thing we get to an explanation of why that precise time. Paul talks about the administration of the “fullness of times” in the 1st of Ephesians and Hebrews 1 tells us that God has now spoken us in the these last times “IN His Son”. Bottom line? Because that’s the time when God the Father decreed the Christ should be born in time, live a sinless life, die for the guilt of others and defeat their death in His resurrection.

49

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

From the sounds of it, you have an imagined persecution complex (claiming everyone hates Catholics - most people could give a shit), when in fact it would appear you have a anti-Semitic leaning. Nothing like persecuting while claiming persecution. [/quote]

Seriously?

Just when I start to think maybe I’m a little too harsh in my judgment of you, you pull out one of these.

Yeesh. [/quote]

Firstly, your arrogance precedes you if you think I need your approval. I don’t care one iota about your “judgment” of me.

BC has on more than one occasion posted about how Catholics are hated. Either I live in a cave (I just pitched under-handed to you, let’s see if you can take a grade school swing at it and it one to the outfield) or I’m unaware of such wide-spread specific hatred of Catholics. And finally, he just posted a reference in rebuttal to bible interpretation from a known holocaust denier with no credentials to even pen the article.

So yes…really. [/quote]

You accused him of anti-semitism without any evidence is what you did.
[/quote]

Did you read the posted reference? Do you know anything about the author?

Let’s just say it’s a curious choice to choose this author to make a point about the bible. The article basically alleged “Jews control the media” - in this case, the OT. It’s fucking laughable.

And although I do not often agree with BC on matters of religion, I do believe he is quite capable of defending himself, if such defense is in fact required. I did not “accuse” him of Antisemitism; I said exactly, “it would appear you have an anti-Semitic leaning.” On what other intelligible basis would you reference that particular author on a matter of biblical interpretation? The “evidence” of my suggestion (not accusation) is his curious choice of posted reference.

So, judgment is reserved for BC’s reply, not yours. You’re not the hall monitor around here. This is at least the 2nd time you injected yourself into something on someone’s behalf. First Pat, now BC and neither are incapable of defending their positions.

50

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The Gospel of Mark Chapter 1:14-15,

Thanks for this, it was exactly what I was looking for. I actually stumbled upon the passage from Mark yesterday by searching digitally for the word “time”. It shows up a lot in the NT lol.

51

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

From the sounds of it, you have an imagined persecution complex (claiming everyone hates Catholics - most people could give a shit), when in fact it would appear you have a anti-Semitic leaning. Nothing like persecuting while claiming persecution. [/quote]

Seriously?

Just when I start to think maybe I’m a little too harsh in my judgment of you, you pull out one of these.

Yeesh. [/quote]

Firstly, your arrogance precedes you if you think I need your approval. I don’t care one iota about your “judgment” of me.

BC has on more than one occasion posted about how Catholics are hated. Either I live in a cave (I just pitched under-handed to you, let’s see if you can take a grade school swing at it and it one to the outfield) or I’m unaware of such wide-spread specific hatred of Catholics. And finally, he just posted a reference in rebuttal to bible interpretation from a known holocaust denier with no credentials to even pen the article.

So yes…really. [/quote]

You accused him of anti-semitism without any evidence is what you did.
[/quote]

Did you read the posted reference? Do you know anything about the author?

Let’s just say it’s a curious choice to choose this author to make a point about the bible. The article basically alleged “Jews control the media” - in this case, the OT. It’s fucking laughable.

And although I do not often agree with BC on matters of religion, I do believe he is quite capable of defending himself, if such defense is in fact required. I did not “accuse” him of Antisemitism; I said exactly, “it would appear you have an anti-Semitic leaning.” On what other intelligible basis would you reference that particular author on a matter of biblical interpretation? The “evidence” of my suggestion (not accusation) is his curious choice of posted reference.

So, judgment is reserved for BC’s reply, not yours. You’re not the hall monitor around here. This is at least the 2nd time you injected yourself into something on someone’s behalf. First Pat, now BC and neither are incapable of defending their positions. [/quote]

Enough of your imperious bluster, churl. You do the exact same thing. Indeed you are doing it in this very post.

I’ll speak my mind when I see fit. You aren’t the hall monitor, either. If anything you’re the schoolyard bully.

52

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

From the sounds of it, you have an imagined persecution complex (claiming everyone hates Catholics - most people could give a shit), when in fact it would appear you have a anti-Semitic leaning. Nothing like persecuting while claiming persecution. [/quote]

Seriously?

Just when I start to think maybe I’m a little too harsh in my judgment of you, you pull out one of these.

Yeesh. [/quote]

Firstly, your arrogance precedes you if you think I need your approval. I don’t care one iota about your “judgment” of me.

BC has on more than one occasion posted about how Catholics are hated. Either I live in a cave (I just pitched under-handed to you, let’s see if you can take a grade school swing at it and it one to the outfield) or I’m unaware of such wide-spread specific hatred of Catholics. And finally, he just posted a reference in rebuttal to bible interpretation from a known holocaust denier with no credentials to even pen the article.

So yes…really. [/quote]

You accused him of anti-semitism without any evidence is what you did.
[/quote]

Did you read the posted reference? Do you know anything about the author?

Let’s just say it’s a curious choice to choose this author to make a point about the bible. The article basically alleged “Jews control the media” - in this case, the OT. It’s fucking laughable.

And although I do not often agree with BC on matters of religion, I do believe he is quite capable of defending himself, if such defense is in fact required. I did not “accuse” him of Antisemitism; I said exactly, “it would appear you have an anti-Semitic leaning.” On what other intelligible basis would you reference that particular author on a matter of biblical interpretation? The “evidence” of my suggestion (not accusation) is his curious choice of posted reference.

So, judgment is reserved for BC’s reply, not yours. You’re not the hall monitor around here. This is at least the 2nd time you injected yourself into something on someone’s behalf. First Pat, now BC and neither are incapable of defending their positions. [/quote]

Enough of your imperious bluster, churl. You do the exact same thing. Indeed you are doing it in this very post.

I’ll speak my mind when I see fit. You aren’t the hall monitor, either. If anything you’re the schoolyard bully.

[/quote]

You and your other friend have quite the complex about bullies. Me thinks you were picked on a lot, which fueled your desire to be “hyooge” (LOL), which in turn fueled your steroid use, but you only ended up 220 which isn’t even huge in high school anymore, so you moved to Japan to realize our hugeness dream, with the hope that none of them lil japanese guys would bully you. That about sum it up?

Stop following me around from thread to thread weirdo. You fancy yourself some intellectual. Grow up first. No one is impressed by your $20 words, churl. LOL fucking joker you are.

54

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

From the sounds of it, you have an imagined persecution complex (claiming everyone hates Catholics - most people could give a shit), when in fact it would appear you have a anti-Semitic leaning. Nothing like persecuting while claiming persecution. [/quote]

Seriously?

Just when I start to think maybe I’m a little too harsh in my judgment of you, you pull out one of these.

Yeesh. [/quote]

Firstly, your arrogance precedes you if you think I need your approval. I don’t care one iota about your “judgment” of me.

BC has on more than one occasion posted about how Catholics are hated. Either I live in a cave (I just pitched under-handed to you, let’s see if you can take a grade school swing at it and it one to the outfield) or I’m unaware of such wide-spread specific hatred of Catholics. And finally, he just posted a reference in rebuttal to bible interpretation from a known holocaust denier with no credentials to even pen the article.

So yes…really. [/quote]

You accused him of anti-semitism without any evidence is what you did.
[/quote]

Did you read the posted reference? Do you know anything about the author?

Let’s just say it’s a curious choice to choose this author to make a point about the bible. The article basically alleged “Jews control the media” - in this case, the OT. It’s fucking laughable.

And although I do not often agree with BC on matters of religion, I do believe he is quite capable of defending himself, if such defense is in fact required. I did not “accuse” him of Antisemitism; I said exactly, “it would appear you have an anti-Semitic leaning.” On what other intelligible basis would you reference that particular author on a matter of biblical interpretation? The “evidence” of my suggestion (not accusation) is his curious choice of posted reference.

So, judgment is reserved for BC’s reply, not yours. You’re not the hall monitor around here. This is at least the 2nd time you injected yourself into something on someone’s behalf. First Pat, now BC and neither are incapable of defending their positions. [/quote]

Enough of your imperious bluster, churl. You do the exact same thing. Indeed you are doing it in this very post.

I’ll speak my mind when I see fit. You aren’t the hall monitor, either. If anything you’re the schoolyard bully.
[/quote]

You’re close, Cortes.

He’s the schoolyard sniper.

[/quote]

I knew the other third of the trinity would show up! Bravo sir! Another brilliant “me too” post. Ah well, it’s the best you can do with your God-given talents :slight_smile:

55

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

From the sounds of it, you have an imagined persecution complex (claiming everyone hates Catholics - most people could give a shit), when in fact it would appear you have a anti-Semitic leaning. Nothing like persecuting while claiming persecution. [/quote]

Seriously?

Just when I start to think maybe I’m a little too harsh in my judgment of you, you pull out one of these.

Yeesh. [/quote]

Firstly, your arrogance precedes you if you think I need your approval. I don’t care one iota about your “judgment” of me.

BC has on more than one occasion posted about how Catholics are hated. Either I live in a cave (I just pitched under-handed to you, let’s see if you can take a grade school swing at it and it one to the outfield) or I’m unaware of such wide-spread specific hatred of Catholics. And finally, he just posted a reference in rebuttal to bible interpretation from a known holocaust denier with no credentials to even pen the article.

So yes…really. [/quote]

You accused him of anti-semitism without any evidence is what you did.
[/quote]

Did you read the posted reference? Do you know anything about the author?

Let’s just say it’s a curious choice to choose this author to make a point about the bible. The article basically alleged “Jews control the media” - in this case, the OT. It’s fucking laughable.

And although I do not often agree with BC on matters of religion, I do believe he is quite capable of defending himself, if such defense is in fact required. I did not “accuse” him of Antisemitism; I said exactly, “it would appear you have an anti-Semitic leaning.” On what other intelligible basis would you reference that particular author on a matter of biblical interpretation? The “evidence” of my suggestion (not accusation) is his curious choice of posted reference.

So, judgment is reserved for BC’s reply, not yours. You’re not the hall monitor around here. This is at least the 2nd time you injected yourself into something on someone’s behalf. First Pat, now BC and neither are incapable of defending their positions. [/quote]

Enough of your imperious bluster, churl. You do the exact same thing. Indeed you are doing it in this very post.

I’ll speak my mind when I see fit. You aren’t the hall monitor, either. If anything you’re the schoolyard bully.

[/quote]

You and your other friend have quite the complex about bullies. Me thinks you were picked on a lot, which fueled your desire to be “hyooge” (LOL), which in turn fueled your steroid use, but you only ended up 220 which isn’t even huge in high school anymore, so you moved to Japan to realize our hugeness dream, with the hope that none of them lil japanese guys would bully you. That about sum it up?

Stop following me around from thread to thread weirdo. You fancy yourself some intellectual. Grow up first. No one is impressed by your $20 words, churl. LOL fucking joker you are.[/quote]

Hah, I’m sure your physique (and posture) is something to marvel. Someone doth protest too much.

Every time you reply, it is a further confirmation that you are the biggest hypocrite on this website. Your every word has been a personal attack, ad hominem, strawman or red-herring since even before I pointed out that you “implied” (my word for your weasel words) that Chris was an anti-semite when you couldn’t meet the arguments of the author he provided in response to your claims.

See Dr. Skeptix’ post for how to actually counter without indulging in nothing but logical fallacies, tough-guy.

I won’t be replying to you again, but I know you will not save your breath.

57

[quote]Cortes wrote:

See Dr. Skeptix’ post …
[/quote]

(Thanks for the shout-out)

Having read again that ridiculous article by Shamir, I was moved to check another source.

The contention is that the Masoretes in the 9th century intentionally forged Isaiah, or that Jews mistranslating into Greek, connived to alter the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 in order to discredit Christianity. If that is the contention, then it must be understood that “almah” means something other than “virgin.”

Well, guess what? The Dead Sea Scrolls were transcribed in or shortly after the 1st century, clearly without the knowledge of proto- Christian belief. And among them, the Isaiah Scroll–nearly intact --uses the word “almah.” Thus it is the MT, and not the Sept., which better preserves the meaning of the original text of Isaiah. The scribes there could not have been part of a vast and timeless Jewish Rabbinic conspiracy to alter the foundations of Christian belief (which was unknown to them), and it is very likely that “ha-almah” is better translated as “the young woman” than as “parthenos” in Greek–“a virgin.”

–

Two last details.

First, grammar. Isaiah is speaking to Ahaz in the plural. Presumably others–his court–are present. And he uses, not the future tense, but the imperfect present tense, to signify on ongoing act: “…the young woman is (being) pregnant.” Not “a young woman will conceive.” It is as though he is saying “this woman”–who? Ahaz’ daughter? his concubine?–“is pregnant and you do not even know that!”

Second, I was hoping someone would jump to my allusion.

Proverbs 30

18 There are three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not:
19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock;
the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a young woman.

The word there is “almah” again. The context most assuredly does not suggest “virgin.” Certainly “the way of a man with a virgin” would not have been the intended meaning, and notice how this marries with the intent of Isa 7:14!

–

All this chattering–all open to challenge-- is meant to enrich the reading of a single sentence of Isaiah, and not to detract from beliefs. If only one reading were allowed, it would lose its charm and power, and serve only as meaningless outside the expectations expressed in the NT. It would seem that Christian belief should not feel threatened by this type of discussion of the original text.

58
59

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

From the sounds of it, you have an imagined persecution complex (claiming everyone hates Catholics - most people could give a shit), when in fact it would appear you have a anti-Semitic leaning. Nothing like persecuting while claiming persecution. [/quote]

Seriously?

Just when I start to think maybe I’m a little too harsh in my judgment of you, you pull out one of these.

Yeesh. [/quote]

Firstly, your arrogance precedes you if you think I need your approval. I don’t care one iota about your “judgment” of me.

BC has on more than one occasion posted about how Catholics are hated. Either I live in a cave (I just pitched under-handed to you, let’s see if you can take a grade school swing at it and it one to the outfield) or I’m unaware of such wide-spread specific hatred of Catholics. And finally, he just posted a reference in rebuttal to bible interpretation from a known holocaust denier with no credentials to even pen the article.

So yes…really. [/quote]

You accused him of anti-semitism without any evidence is what you did.
[/quote]

Did you read the posted reference? Do you know anything about the author?

Let’s just say it’s a curious choice to choose this author to make a point about the bible. The article basically alleged “Jews control the media” - in this case, the OT. It’s fucking laughable.

And although I do not often agree with BC on matters of religion, I do believe he is quite capable of defending himself, if such defense is in fact required. I did not “accuse” him of Antisemitism; I said exactly, “it would appear you have an anti-Semitic leaning.” On what other intelligible basis would you reference that particular author on a matter of biblical interpretation? The “evidence” of my suggestion (not accusation) is his curious choice of posted reference.

So, judgment is reserved for BC’s reply, not yours. You’re not the hall monitor around here. This is at least the 2nd time you injected yourself into something on someone’s behalf. First Pat, now BC and neither are incapable of defending their positions. [/quote]

Enough of your imperious bluster, churl. You do the exact same thing. Indeed you are doing it in this very post.

I’ll speak my mind when I see fit. You aren’t the hall monitor, either. If anything you’re the schoolyard bully.

[/quote]

You and your other friend have quite the complex about bullies. Me thinks you were picked on a lot, which fueled your desire to be “hyooge” (LOL), which in turn fueled your steroid use, but you only ended up 220 which isn’t even huge in high school anymore, so you moved to Japan to realize our hugeness dream, with the hope that none of them lil japanese guys would bully you. That about sum it up?

Stop following me around from thread to thread weirdo. You fancy yourself some intellectual. Grow up first. No one is impressed by your $20 words, churl. LOL fucking joker you are.[/quote]

Hah, I’m sure your physique (and posture) is something to marvel. Someone doth protest too much.

Every time you reply, it is a further confirmation that you are the biggest hypocrite on this website. Your every word has been a personal attack, ad hominem, strawman or red-herring since even before I pointed out that you “implied” (my word for your weasel words) that Chris was an anti-semite when you couldn’t meet the arguments of the author he provided in response to your claims.

See Dr. Skeptix’ post for how to actually counter without indulging in nothing but logical fallacies, tough-guy.

I won’t be replying to you again, but I know you will not save your breath.
[/quote]

Does this mean you won’t be stalking me from thread to thread anymore :frowning: As for Dr. Skeptix, he has more stamina that I. I know of these “arguments”, have read and researched them long ago and they influence me to this day. I will not exhaustively outline them only to be greeted by the inevitable and irrational cry to “faith” in the Church that butchered the scripture to create a myth and a new religion. Understand? Little guy?

60

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[/quote]

Well, then, be my guest! I am just learning with everyone else.

But I am not discussing the Christian Doctrine of the Virgin Birth–that is not my interest and you would be better served by an audience with Brother Chris. My intent is literary only and not one of beliefs. On a purely literary level, the answers to questions about the Old Testament are found in it and its contemporary sources, and not in the New Testament. To contend otherwise is not in my range of interest.