| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2007 08:25:25 PM |
| Object: |
Why The Holy Bible Lies #121 - 130 |
#121.
Jesus' lack of faith:
Nah. 1:7 "The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble"
Or
Mat. 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?"
How inventive of the gospel fairy-tale spinner to put the exact words
of Psalm 22 into his mouth for dramatic effect? Matthew, as we shall
see, was obsessively fond of cribbing from old scripture.
#122.
God's idea of getting *****-faced:
Mal. 2:2-3 "...saith the LORD of hosts...Behold, I will corrupt your
seed, and spread dung upon your faces..."
Did the God of Love really say that, or is this another Bible lie?
#123.
Mat. 1 lists 42 generations from Abram to Jesus and identifies them as
three sets of fourteen to confirm that none are missing (v. 11: "And
Josias begat Jechonias...about the time they were carried away to
Babylon..." should actually read: "And Josias begat Jakim, and Jakim
begat Jechonias...about the time they were carried away to Babylon..."
to make the count work). Matthew, unfortunately, misses several names
from his list. Between Joram and Ozias,
there should appear Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. It is of interest to
note that Matthew attempts to include very nearly every King of Judah
in his desperation to make Jesus royal.
Isaac Asimov in "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" points out that there
are some interesting names in the list. Boaz
(Booz) was begat of Rahab, most likely the same woman who was the
harlot in the story of the fall of Jericho (Jos. 2:1). Obed was a son
of Ruth, who was a Moabite, hardly of the line of David! Perez
(Phares) was one of twin sons born
to Tamar who pretended to be a harlot to trick the patriarch Judah
into having sex with her (the story of Onan, Gen. 38). And both the
"evil" queens Jezebel and Athaliah are associated with this genealogy!
Luk. 3 lists 14 more generations between Abram and Jesus than does
Matthew. The names from Abram to David match precisely, but after
David (apart from the Salathiel-Zorobabel couplet) there are no
matches, not even of Joseph's father! I have seen this "explained"
in that one genealogy is that of Joseph, the other being that of Mary,
but nowhere does it confirm this in the Bible. The last couplet does
not say "Jacob begat Mary," or "Heli begat Mary." Both these
guys begat Joseph, according to the text - and since when does the
Bible give a damn about women's lineage? Never!
Even if one line was that of Mary, and the other Joseph, what is the
explanation for the two lines differing to the tune of fourteen
generations? Matthew claims an exact count, so the other gospel needs
to explain not the forefathers, but the fourteen fathers! Besides,
Mary was apparently a Levite (cousin of Elizabeth - mother of John the
Baptist - herself a Levite), not of the House of Judah, as was David.
Jesus himself denies his Davidic descent in one of the very books that
seeks to establish it: Mat. 22:41-46 "While the Pharisees were
gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ?
whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto
them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD
said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine
enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his
son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man
from that day forth ask him any more questions."
Good advice - don't ask too many questions of the Bible - you're
likely to learn what a farce and a shambles it is.
Clearly no amount of explaining away can hide the plain fact that
these gospel writers, supposedly divinely inspired, yet forced to copy
from each other since none of them actually was an eye witness to
anything, totally screwed up the genealogy of the most important man
in their lives. Nowhere in the Bible is there offered any explanation
whatsoever for the discrepancy. If they cannot get a simple thing
like this right, if they cannot provide a competent explanation, how
can we possibly trust them with the more complex matters they claim to
relate?
#124.
And just who was the father? Was it the Holy Ghost:
Mat. 1:18 "...When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before
they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
Or was it actually Joseph, explaining why such a fuss is made over his
lineage from David:
Act. 2:30 "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of [David's] loins, according
to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;"
On the other hand:
Luk. 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph..."
As was supposed? This doesn't confirm a miraculous birth, but it does
cast doubt on Joseph being the father. Perhaps Mary was a little more
contrary than the Catholics would admit. Maybe she had simply become
pregnant through normal means, but not by Joseph, who got suckered
into marrying her and raising her ***** when the inventive Mary came
up with this fiction that he was the Son of God?
#125.
Mat. 1:21-23 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his
name Jesus...Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall
be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his
name Emmanuel..."
Huh? How is this illogical prophecy fulfilled when it explicitly
states that the child will be named 'Emmanuel'?
#126.
Mat 2:1 "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of
Herod the king..."
Luk 2:2 "(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius [Quirinius] was
governor of Syria.)"
Sulpicius Quirinius was governor starting 6AD. Herod died 4BC. There
is no record of Quirinius conducting a census prior to 6AD and no
logical reason for doing so. Nor can it be explained by pretending
this referred to one of Herod's sons, since they were never kings.
#127.
Dream on:
Mat. 2:19-23 "But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord
appeareth...saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother,
and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the
young child's life....But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in
Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go
thither...And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be
called a Nazarene."
Why is it, that God is powerless to help Joseph, who has to do all his
own work, running off to Egypt on the strength of a dream, running
back, and turning aside out of fear of one of Herod's sons? God
couldn't protect him in Israel? "Hey, Honey, I had a nightmare last
night, so...I know - let's spend this spring in Egypt!" This is a
woman who had just had a baby and is now expected to walk to Egypt?
And if God had declared it safe to return, why was Joseph having
conniptions about Archelaus? Did he think God was lying?
So Matthew has Joseph and Mary hastening to Egypt to escape the evil
Herod who plans on killing all children under the age of two years,
just to get rid of this messiah. Mark, the original gospel, and Luke
make no mention whatsoever
of anything like Matthew's colorful history. Luke has them hanging
out in Jerusalem, presenting their newborn at the temple (for what?
Is God so stupid he doesn't know when his own son is born?!), and then
a leisurely return to
Nazareth.
Both of these story lines cannot be true. There is no mention
anywhere, in or out of the Bible, except in Matthew, of this murdering
of children by Herod. And does it make sense? No! Jesus, the Prince
of Peace, the Light of the
World, is supposed to be coming into the world to save people, yet
here he is, directly responsible for scores of deaths - deaths of
toddlers and babies. It is so farcical that it is pathetic and anyone
who believes the words of any of
these gospels is an idiot, period.
A big deal is made out of the fraudulent parts of Josephus' history,
supposedly proving that Jesus was real, but neither Josephus nor any
other source says a single word about Herod slaughtering all children
under 2 years in the environs
of Bethlehem, even though he was perfectly capable of such a thing.
Why is there no big deal made of this? Is it because it never
happened, and Matthew was desperate to make the fictional Jesus
greater than he purportedly was? Is this why he ripped off the myth
of Moses? It is a fact that there are no writers at all, contemporary
with this "Jesus" or anywhere near, who make any testament whatsoever
to the reality of Jesus.
Jesus is claimed to hail from Nazareth, but this is another lie. As
we can see (read the full Bible text to get the complete picture)
Matthew was obsessed with "fulfilling" Old Testament prophecy,
regardless of how absurdly his story turned out. This seems to be the
only reason that this fiction of Herod's infanticidal pogrom and
Joseph's flight to Egypt came to be put on papyrus.
Rather than fulfilling a prohecy and being a Nazareth-ite, the idea
was much more likely to have been ripped off from the Nazarites. This
was a group of people, which purportedly included such luminaries as
Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist (and even Paul, on a couple of
brief occasions) who vowed, for any period from 30 days to life, to:
abstain from wine and strong drink, refrain from cutting hair, and
avoid contact with the dead.
In order to end the vow, a Nazarite had to offer a male first year
lamb as a burnt-offering (lambs really got screwed in ancient Israel -
and not in a good way) - also a female first year lamb as a sin-
offering and a ram as a peace-offering. It seems they would also cut
off their hair and burn it. They were big into burning back then.
#128.
Doesn't dove-tail:
Mat. 3:17 - 4:1 "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Then was Jesus led up of the
Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil."
Mark and Luke agree with this fable (as they ought). Mark says he
went immediately into the wilderness, but the book of John gives a
completely different story: Jesus goes to a wedding! It is via the
Baptist's word that we hear of this voice from heaven and the
anointing, but Jesus doesn't go immediately into the wilderness. In
fact, he never goes to the wilderness in John. The closest he gets is
when this Son of God loses faith that God can protect him, and
withdraws to Ephraim to hide out from the authorities!
Is this supposed to be a true story of the son of a god - or is it the
Greatest Lie Ever Told?
#129.
Mat 5:1 "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain..."
and delivered the Sermon on the mount. Or:
Luk. 6:17 "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain..."
and delivered the Sermon on the mount.
Was he in the mountain and there delivered the sermon, or did he go up
the mountain, then come down and deliver the sermon? They cannot both
be correct. And how many Beatitudes did he spout? Mat. 5:3-11 gives
9, while Luk. 6:20-22 gives only 3! Who's to bless and who's to
blame?
#130.
Mat. 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your
good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."
Or, only one chapter later:
Mat. 6:1 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of
them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven."
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Holy Bible Lies #121 - 130 |
02 Apr 2007 04:01:32 PM |
|
|
I thought it might be amusing to see what sort of stuff an atheist can
come up with to prove "the bible lies". Of course sad and stupid
people will rely mainly on smear, innuendo and assertion, but who
knows, perhaps there might be something.
On the other hand, can anyone imagine someone with so little in their
life to sit down and think up 50 reasons, never mind 130??!!!?
On 1 Apr, 02:25, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
#121.
Jesus' lack of faith:
Nah. 1:7 "The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble"
Or
Mat. 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?"
How inventive of the gospel fairy-tale spinner to put the exact words
of Psalm 22 into his mouth for dramatic effect? Matthew, as we shall
see, was obsessively fond of cribbing from old scripture.
One sees nothing in this which is "a lie". Merely an incoherent jeer,
which relies on an unstated premise, that no-one can quote the OT in
the NT without proving it a lie. Quite why this should be so we are
not told.
#122.
God's idea of getting *****-faced:
Mal. 2:2-3 "...saith the LORD of hosts...Behold, I will corrupt your
seed, and spread dung upon your faces..."
Did the God of Love really say that, or is this another Bible lie?
Again we are not told how this relates to the proposition that the
bible is a lie.
#123.
Mat. 1 lists 42 generations from Abram to Jesus ...
Matthew, unfortunately, misses several names
from his list. Between Joram and Ozias,
there should appear Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. It is of interest to
note that Matthew attempts to include very nearly every King of Judah
in his desperation to make Jesus royal.
Isaac Asimov in "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" points out that there
are some interesting names in the list. Boaz
(Booz) was begat of Rahab, most likely the same woman who was the
harlot in the story of the fall of Jericho (Jos. 2:1). Obed was a son
of Ruth, who was a Moabite, hardly of the line of David! Perez
(Phares) was one of twin sons born
to Tamar who pretended to be a harlot to trick the patriarch Judah
into having sex with her (the story of Onan, Gen. 38). And both the
"evil" queens Jezebel and Athaliah are associated with this genealogy!
Luk. 3 lists 14 more generations between Abram and Jesus than does
Matthew. ... I have seen this "explained"
in that one genealogy is that of Joseph, the other being that of Mary,
but nowhere does it confirm this in the Bible. The last couplet does
not say "Jacob begat Mary," or "Heli begat Mary." Both these
guys begat Joseph, according to the text - and since when does the
Bible give a damn about women's lineage? Never!
Even if one line was that of Mary, and the other Joseph, what is the
explanation for the two lines differing to the tune of fourteen
generations? ...
(irrelevant rant snipped)
Again we are forced to ask: how is this related to the proposition
that "the holy bible lies"? The argument has been omitted! It is a
fact that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ, not least in
being in different order. This fact has been known since ancient
times, and commentated on, and various solutions proposed, most of
them relying on various cultural practices of the time. But how does
this relate to the question?
The silently proposed logic must be something like this:
1. No portion of the bible must differ in any way from any other
part, or appear to do so if read through 20th century eyes, or be
possible to read as differing, otherwise that proves that the bible is
a lie.
2. Here we have two genealogies for Jesus which are different.
3. The two must be intended to be the same.
4. Therefore we have a real difference.
5. Therefore one or the other is a deliberate lie (not an accident)
6. Therefore the bible has lied.
It would be most interesting to see proofs of #1, #3, and #5. #5 is a
non sequitur, of course.
#124.
And just who was the father? Was it the Holy Ghost:
Mat. 1:18 "...When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before
they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
Or was it actually Joseph, explaining why such a fuss is made over his
lineage from David:
Act. 2:30 "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of [David's] loins, according
to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;"
On the other hand:
Luk. 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph..."
As was supposed? This doesn't confirm a miraculous birth, but it does
cast doubt on Joseph being the father. Perhaps Mary was a little more
contrary than the Catholics would admit. Maybe she had simply become
pregnant through normal means, but not by Joseph, who got suckered
into marrying her and raising her ***** when the inventive Mary came
up with this fiction that he was the Son of God?
Again the question is raised: how does this bear on the question?
This is merely yet another Victorian-style "bible difficulty".
#125.
Mat. 1:21-23 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his
name Jesus...Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall
be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his
name Emmanuel..."
Huh? How is this illogical prophecy fulfilled when it explicitly
states that the child will be named 'Emmanuel'?
Ditto.
#126.
Mat 2:1 "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of
Herod the king..."
Luk 2:2 "(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius [Quirinius] was
governor of Syria.)"
Sulpicius Quirinius was governor starting 6AD. Herod died 4BC. There
is no record of Quirinius conducting a census prior to 6AD and no
logical reason for doing so. Nor can it be explained by pretending
this referred to one of Herod's sons, since they were never kings.
Ditto. The argument is not that the bible contains mistakes. It is
that it LIES.
Note that the argument above relies on absence of evidence, and as
such has no validity.
#127.
Mat. 2:19-23 "But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord
appeareth...saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother,
and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the
young child's life....But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in
Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go
thither...And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be
called a Nazarene."
Why is it, that God is powerless to help Joseph... (jeering snipped)
So Matthew has Joseph and Mary hastening to Egypt to escape the evil
Herod who plans on killing all children under the age of two years,
just to get rid of this messiah. Mark, the original gospel, and Luke
make no mention whatsoever of anything like Matthew's colorful history.
Luke has them hanging out in Jerusalem, presenting their newborn at the
temple (for what? Is God so stupid he doesn't know when his own son is
born?!), and then a leisurely return to Nazareth.
Both of these story lines cannot be true.
(further ranting snipped)
Why not? But still, this shows nothing.
In summary, we have nothing here. And we still don't know just why
atheists live by values that they cannot discuss.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Allan Adler" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Holy Bible Lies #121 - 130 |
05 Apr 2007 09:37:32 AM |
|
|
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
I thought it might be amusing to see what sort of stuff an atheist can
come up with to prove "the bible lies".
Just a few comments:
(1) When we speak of "the bible", what are we talking about? At the very least
there are two works, the tanakh and the so-called New Testament.
(2) It is one thing to say that the bible (whatever that is) is not entirely
accurate. It is another to say that its inaccuracies are the result of
deliberate attempts to deceive the reader. I don't happen to believe the
bible (whatever that is) but it must be impossible to prove anything at
all about the intentions of its authors.
(3) Accordingly, it is inherently prejudicial to describe inaccuracies in the
bible (whatever that is) as lies. Why isn't it sufficient to say that it
the document is inaccurate, if that is all that one really means?
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <ara@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Holy Bible Lies #121 - 130 |
05 Apr 2007 12:07:43 PM |
|
|
On 5 Apr, 15:37, Allan Adler <a...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
I thought it might be amusing to see what sort of stuff an atheist can
come up with to prove "the bible lies".
Just a few comments:
(1) When we speak of "the bible", what are we talking about? At the very least
there are two works, the tanakh and the so-called New Testament.
I think the context is fairly clearly the Christian bible, so this is
a point that I did not make.
(2) It is one thing to say that the bible (whatever that is) is not entirely
accurate. It is another to say that its inaccuracies are the result of
deliberate attempts to deceive the reader. I don't happen to believe the
bible (whatever that is) but it must be impossible to prove anything at
all about the intentions of its authors.
I agree. This is why I wondered what the author had to offer for his
claim.
(3) Accordingly, it is inherently prejudicial to describe inaccuracies in the
bible (whatever that is) as lies. Why isn't it sufficient to say that it
the document is inaccurate, if that is all that one really means?
Surely it should be.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Holy Bible Lies #121 - 130 |
02 Apr 2007 05:57:43 PM |
|
|
On Apr 2, 4:01 pm, "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I thought it might be amusing to see what sort of stuff an atheist can
come up with to prove "the bible lies".
I thought it would be even more amusing to see just how many excuses
the theist apologists can come up with without ever once actually
addressing the material. Let's get ready for your blithe dismissals
and your vacuous one-line "arguments", whereafter you dust off your
hands (which actually have no dust on them at all) and pretend you've
handily seen off another idiot atheist.
How *good* you must feel about yourself. And let's face it - *that's*
what's most important: how warm and fuzzy you can make yourself feel
with the absolute least amount of effort, and never mind *actually*
addressing the material and *supporting* your "responses", because
right here and now you've already dismissed it, so you don't even need
to *actually* address it, do you, Roger?
Of course sad and stupid
people will rely mainly on smear, innuendo and assertion,
No, that's the domain of those who "respond" without having anything
to say. All atheists have to do is simply quote the holey Bible and
show that it requires no effort whatsoever to expose errors,
contradictions, and lies, since the Bible is full of them. But you've
*already* dismissed them unread, and so you don't actually need to
respond in any meaningful way at all, do you?
Aren't you feeling just GREAT about yourself, Roger? I know I would
if I were so vacuous.
but who
knows, perhaps there might be something.
150 so far and counting.
On the other hand, can anyone imagine someone with so little in their
life to sit down and think up 50 reasons, never mind 130??!!!?
It takes no time at all when you already have all the material and it
just needs a little editing, especially when you've been casually
posting this series since January. But you'd rather no one found any
fault at all, wouldn't you? You'd rather *everyone* turn the same
blind eye that you do; then you wouldn't have to pretend you rebutted
their argument, would you, Roger? Wouldn't life be so much more warm
and fuzzy like that?
Unfortunately, I'm not the one claiming, without a shred of evidence
or authority, to be the savior of the world, or claiming, on that same
"evidence" and that same "authority" to pass on critical information
about salvation. So sorry, we'll have to get into it.
On 1 Apr, 02:25, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
#121.
Jesus' lack of faith:
Nah. 1:7 "The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble"
Or
Mat. 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?"
How inventive of the gospel fairy-tale spinner to put the exact words
of Psalm 22 into his mouth for dramatic effect? Matthew, as we shall
see, was obsessively fond of cribbing from old scripture.
One sees nothing in this which is "a lie". Merely an incoherent jeer,
No, that's what your response is. Why is *that* not a surprise? Hey
go ahead and add "They didn't have llamas in the Middle East so how
could he have said that?". Go on! It makes as much sense as
everything else you've spouted so far.
And why it is that you think your simply gainsaying what I wrote
somehow constitutes a valid, or a supported, or a rationale
objection? Is it because you already arrogantly made up your mind and
are too blind to actually even see what I wrote?
The fact is that this quote is in Psalm 22. Is it more likely that
the writer of "Matthew" got it from actually witnessing some miracle-
working son-of-a-god stating such a patently *assinine* thing, or does
it make more sense (given his evident manipulation of this story to
suit his own agenda) that he's quite brazenly LYING about who said it
and when?
If it were only one thing in the Bible that were like this, then the
question could probably be readily answered either way, but when you
see time after time after time that these things are manipulated and
contrived, and time after time there are quite evident lies and
contradictions from these purported eye witnesses and other Bible
writers, their credibility rapidly sinks to nil. But that would be
the big picture. Big picture, Roger? No, that's over your head, your
head which is stuck into the sand of one lie out of 150, isn't it?
So go ahead and dismiss every llie with a simple, "No it isn't".
Whatever you do, don't even pretend you can support your response, and
then by all means pretend that if you say no it isn't to every one of
150 lies, this overthrows even the fact of 150 lies and completely
exculpates God's Own Holy Word from all charges, past, present, and
future.
which relies on an unstated premise, that no-one can quote the OT in
the NT without proving it a lie.
That would be something wouldn't it? I never stated it, as you admit,
but I did state it since you've declared it to be so by fiat alone, in
complete isolation from anything else I've written. LoL!
Quite why this should be so we are
not told.
Not in language that's anywhere near your reading grade evidently.
Your position, then, is that Jesus actually did say this? What's your
evidence? Not your evidence for him saying it, but your evidence that
there even was in the first place, a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son-
of-a-god to say it?
When you've established that, we can go into whether or not he said
it, or whether, by Ockham's razor, the more likely explanation is that
the writer of "Matthew" simply ripped it off.
Because until this "Jesus" is established with some serious
credibility, the entire NT is a lie, and it is far more rationale to
treat these things as they are - gossamer fabrications thrown together
in a desperate attempt to establish credibility for a myth.
#122.
God's idea of getting *****-faced:
Mal. 2:2-3 "...saith the LORD of hosts...Behold, I will corrupt your
seed, and spread dung upon your faces..."
Did the God of Love really say that, or is this another Bible lie?
Again we are not told how this relates to the proposition that the
bible is a lie.
Clearly you need to work on your comprehension skills and see the big
picture. No one can help you until you take off your blinkers. I
won't hold my breath.
#123.
Mat. 1 lists 42 generations from Abram to Jesus ...
Matthew, unfortunately, misses several names
from his list. Between Joram and Ozias,
there should appear Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. It is of interest to
note that Matthew attempts to include very nearly every King of Judah
in his desperation to make Jesus royal.
Isaac Asimov in "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" points out that there
are some interesting names in the list. Boaz
(Booz) was begat of Rahab, most likely the same woman who was the
harlot in the story of the fall of Jericho (Jos. 2:1). Obed was a son
of Ruth, who was a Moabite, hardly of the line of David! Perez
(Phares) was one of twin sons born
to Tamar who pretended to be a harlot to trick the patriarch Judah
into having sex with her (the story of Onan, Gen. 38). And both the
"evil" queens Jezebel and Athaliah are associated with this genealogy!
Luk. 3 lists 14 more generations between Abram and Jesus than does
Matthew. ... I have seen this "explained"
in that one genealogy is that of Joseph, the other being that of Mary,
but nowhere does it confirm this in the Bible. The last couplet does
not say "Jacob begat Mary," or "Heli begat Mary." Both these
guys begat Joseph, according to the text - and since when does the
Bible give a damn about women's lineage? Never!
Even if one line was that of Mary, and the other Joseph, what is the
explanation for the two lines differing to the tune of fourteen
generations? ...
(irrelevant rant snipped)
How convenient. Here you're accusing me of assertion without basis,
and there you go snipping material and arbitrarily declaring it to be
irrelevant. LoL! But if it's too hard for you to refute, please feel
free to snip all you want and just tackle the little bits in
isolation. Don't worry your overstretched mind with the big picture,
please.
Again we are forced to ask: how is this related to the proposition
that "the holy bible lies"? The argument has been omitted! It is a
fact that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ, not least in
being in different order.
So are both telling the truth - OR DOES ONE OF THEM LIE?
This fact has been known since ancient
times, and commentated on, and various solutions proposed, most of
them relying on various cultural practices of the time. But how does
this relate to the question?
So are both telling the truth - OR DOES ONE OF THEM LIE?
The silently proposed logic must be something like this:
1. No portion of the bible must differ in any way from any other
part, or appear to do so if read through 20th century eyes, or be
possible to read as differing, otherwise that proves that the bible is
a lie.
Are both telling the truth - OR DOES ONE OF THEM LIE?
2. Here we have two genealogies for Jesus which are different.
Are both telling the truth - OR DOES ONE OF THEM LIE?
3. The two must be intended to be the same.
They're genelaogies of Jesus. LoL! The reason they differ is
obvious. I guess it's just not obvious to you.
4. Therefore we have a real difference.
Duhh! Are you saying they're the same? LoL! But please feel free to
blather vacuously all you want. It requires no effort for such an
expert and for God's sake don't even think of going to the trouble of
trying to present a coherent rational supported argument. Just
gainsaying is fine. And actually *ennumerating* the vacuous items is
a classic of chutzpah. Way to go Roger! What a clever little theist
you are.
5. Therefore one or the other is a deliberate lie (not an accident)
They were written 1,900 years ago. Are you saying that not one single
person or god noticed the error and corrected it?
6. Therefore the bible has lied.
So what's your explanation? Please support your response if you don't
want it to be dismissed as a just-so story. Meanwhile, in the Word of
God, there exist two genealogies that are both claimed to be that of
this Jesus myth, and they cannot agree, not just in the names, but *in
the number of generations*. And they're not out by one or two,
they're out completely.
It would be most interesting to see proofs of #1, #3, and #5.
It would indeed. Since these are your items, can you provide such a
proof? Or are you just in love with yourself? June isn't far away.
It's probably not too late to book a chruch. But same-sex marriage is
probably banned in your area, right?
#5 is a
non sequitur, of course.
Try supporting your contentions and then we'll discuss it. Otherwise
it's just desperate blather in the face of another Bible lie, isn't
it? I'm not impressed.
#124.
And just who was the father? Was it the Holy Ghost:
Mat. 1:18 "...When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before
they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
Or was it actually Joseph, explaining why such a fuss is made over his
lineage from David:
Act. 2:30 "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of [David's] loins, according
to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;"
On the other hand:
Luk. 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph..."
As was supposed? This doesn't confirm a miraculous birth, but it does
cast doubt on Joseph being the father. Perhaps Mary was a little more
contrary than the Catholics would admit. Maybe she had simply become
pregnant through normal means, but not by Joseph, who got suckered
into marrying her and raising her ***** when the inventive Mary came
up with this fiction that he was the Son of God?
Again the question is raised: how does this bear on the question?
This is merely yet another Victorian-style "bible difficulty".
Keep sidestepping and telling just so stories. When you actually make
a real case for your position, I'll address it.
#125.
Mat. 1:21-23 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his
name Jesus...Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall
be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his
name Emmanuel..."
Huh? How is this illogical prophecy fulfilled when it explicitly
states that the child will be named 'Emmanuel'?
Ditto.
That pretty much sums you up. Keep blathering and pretending you're
actually *addressing* the issues, and then pretend afterwards that you
dimissed all 150 lies. That way you can feel great about yourself
without actually having to do a single thing to justify your
hypocritcal complacency.
#126.
Mat 2:1 "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of
Herod the king..."
Luk 2:2 "(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius [Quirinius] was
governor of Syria.)"
Sulpicius Quirinius was governor starting 6AD. Herod died 4BC. There
is no record of Quirinius conducting a census prior to 6AD and no
logical reason for doing so. Nor can it be explained by pretending
this referred to one of Herod's sons, since they were never kings.
Ditto. The argument is not that the bible contains mistakes. It is
that it LIES.
Yep. When the same "mistakes" are knowingly repeated for close to
2,000 years, they're lies. This is not supposed to be some fictional
story some guy made up to illustrate a principle, where mistakes would
be understandable and perhaps even irrelevant.
This is supposed to be an instruction manual and guidebook to
salvation from God, dictated by the Holy Spirit. Are you claiming
that an omnipotent omniscient god didn't know he was promoting and
perpetuating lies? Or that he did know and didn't care? Which is it?
Note that the argument above relies on absence of evidence
I freely acknowledge that you're the leader in the field in that
department.
and as
such has no validity.
Yep. I'll bet you're feeling pretty darned good right now, aren't
you? You're Pearse Forage Hot. You've utterly overturned all 150
lies with a torrent of solid evidence and rationale. LoL!
#127.
Mat. 2:19-23 "But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord
appeareth...saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother,
and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the
young child's life....But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in
Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go
thither...And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be
called a Nazarene."
Why is it, that God is powerless to help Joseph... (jeering snipped)
So Matthew has Joseph and Mary hastening to Egypt to escape the evil
Herod who plans on killing all children under the age of two years,
just to get rid of this messiah. Mark, the original gospel, and Luke
make no mention whatsoever of anything like Matthew's colorful history.
Luke has them hanging out in Jerusalem, presenting their newborn at the
temple (for what? Is God so stupid he doesn't know when his own son is
born?!), and then a leisurely return to Nazareth.
Both of these story lines cannot be true.
(further ranting snipped)
Good for you. That way you won't actually have to address my
argument, but only the little bits you feel competent to spit out a
quick one-liner to and pretend you've actually addressed the problem.
That's the way to Pearse my armor. LoL! Try parsing instead of
Pearsing.
Why not? But still, this shows nothing.
Obviously not to you. It's not hard to see why.
In summary, we have nothing here.
Why is *that* conclusion totally unsurprising? I saw that coming when
I read your opening sentence. LoL! Why didn't you just write that?
It contains as much "valid material" as everything else you wrote put
together.
And we still don't know just why
atheists live by values that they cannot discuss.
Atheist values come from knowing and doing what's right because it is,
not because it was ordered by a magical sky pixie. I'm sorry that's
beyond your grasp but then evidently so much falls into that region
that this shouldn't be an unbearable addition to your cross.
All the best,
Pearse on Earth.
Roger Pearse
Keep working on fine-tuning that uppity vacuous arrogance. As long as
all of your work goes into that, you'll never have to get your hands
dirty actually dealing with the fact that the Bible has over 150 lies
in it, not one of which you've overturned despite all your
hypocritical and vacuous blather.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Holy Bible Lies #121 - 130 |
03 Apr 2007 03:44:57 AM |
|
|
On 2 Apr, 23:57, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 2, 4:01 pm, "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I thought it might be amusing to see what sort of stuff an atheist can
come up with to prove "the bible lies".
I thought it would be even more amusing to see just how many excuses
the theist apologists can come up ... (abuse snipped)
Note the change of subject. Somehow it's no longer about the OP, or
my response to it. It's about me. Not a good sign, when the
challenge is to rational discussion.
Of course sad and stupid
people will rely mainly on smear, innuendo and assertion,
(abuse snipped)
<smile>
but who knows, perhaps there might be something.
On the other hand, can anyone imagine someone with so little in their
life to sit down and think up 50 reasons, never mind 130??!!!?
It takes no time at all ... (snip)
<smile>
On 1 Apr, 02:25, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
#121.
Jesus' lack of faith:
Nah. 1:7 "The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble"
Or
Mat. 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?"
How inventive of the gospel fairy-tale spinner to put the exact words
of Psalm 22 into his mouth for dramatic effect? Matthew, as we shall
see, was obsessively fond of cribbing from old scripture.
One sees nothing in this which is "a lie". Merely an incoherent jeer,
No, that's what your response is. Why is *that* not a surprise? Hey...
And why it is that you think your simply gainsaying what I wrote
somehow constitutes a valid, or a supported, or a rationale
objection? Is it because you already arrogantly ... (paragraphs of abuse snipped)
<yawn>
The fact is that this quote is in Psalm 22. Is it more likely that
the writer of "Matthew" got it from actually witnessing some miracle-
working son-of-a-god stating such a patently *assinine* thing, or does
it make more sense ... that he's quite brazenly LYING about who said it
and when? (snip)
What's the evidence either way? But of course this destroys the
argument. The argument is that this is proof of lying. Now somehow
it's "is it more probable that..." That, of course, is not proof.
which relies on an unstated premise, that no-one can quote the OT in
the NT without proving it a lie.
That would be something wouldn't it? I never stated it, as you admit,
but I did state it since you've declared it to be so by fiat alone, in
complete isolation from anything else I've written. LoL!
No answer, then.
Quite why this should be so we are
not told.
Not in language that's anywhere near your reading grade evidently.
Not even an attempt to answer the point made.
Your position, then, is that Jesus actually did say this? What's your
evidence?
Let's keep our position clear. The bible is accused of lying because
Jesus quotes scripture on the cross. I ask why this proves a lie.
We're then invited to consider it probable that he did not, and so
Matthew composed it, and so that proves the bible is a lie. I query
this, of course. To this nothing is said but a change of subject.
This will not do, and this particular 'proof' is now lying in pieces
all over the ground.
Not your evidence for him saying it, but your evidence that
there even was in the first place, a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son-
of-a-god to say it? (snip)
Note the change of subject from "is this proof of the bible lying".
#122.
God's idea of getting *****-faced:
Mal. 2:2-3 "...saith the LORD of hosts...Behold, I will corrupt your
seed, and spread dung upon your faces..."
Did the God of Love really say that, or is this another Bible lie?
Again we are not told how this relates to the proposition that the
bible is a lie.
Clearly you need to work on your comprehension skills and see the big
picture. No one can help you until you take off your blinkers. I
won't hold my breath.
No answer, then, except abuse.
#123.
Mat. 1 lists 42 generations from Abram to Jesus ...
Matthew, unfortunately, misses several names
from his list. Between Joram and Ozias,
there should appear Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. It is of interest to
note that Matthew attempts to include very nearly every King of Judah
in his desperation to make Jesus royal.
Isaac Asimov in "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" points out that there
are some interesting names in the list. Boaz
(Booz) was begat of Rahab, most likely the same woman who was the
harlot in the story of the fall of Jericho (Jos. 2:1). Obed was a son
of Ruth, who was a Moabite, hardly of the line of David! Perez
(Phares) was one of twin sons born
to Tamar who pretended to be a harlot to trick the patriarch Judah
into having sex with her (the story of Onan, Gen. 38). And both the
"evil" queens Jezebel and Athaliah are associated with this genealogy!
Luk. 3 lists 14 more generations between Abram and Jesus than does
Matthew. ... I have seen this "explained"
in that one genealogy is that of Joseph, the other being that of Mary,
but nowhere does it confirm this in the Bible. The last couplet does
not say "Jacob begat Mary," or "Heli begat Mary." Both these
guys begat Joseph, according to the text - and since when does the
Bible give a damn about women's lineage? Never!
Even if one line was that of Mary, and the other Joseph, what is the
explanation for the two lines differing to the tune of fourteen
generations? ...
(irrelevant rant snipped)
How convenient. Here you're accusing me of assertion without basis,
and there you go snipping material and arbitrarily declaring it to be
irrelevant. (etc)
<smile>
Again we are forced to ask: how is this related to the proposition
that "the holy bible lies"? The argument has been omitted! It is a
fact that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ, not least in
being in different order.
So are both telling the truth - OR DOES ONE OF THEM LIE?
Probably it is best to READ the argument before responding....
This fact has been known since ancient times, and commentated on,
and various solutions proposed, most of them relying on various cultural
practices of the time. But how does this relate to the question?
So are both telling the truth - OR DOES ONE OF THEM LIE?
Note the reiteration without having read the question.
The silently proposed logic must be something like this:
1. No portion of the bible must differ in any way from any other
part, or appear to do so if read through 20th century eyes, or be
possible to read as differing, otherwise that proves that the bible is
a lie.
Are both telling the truth - OR DOES ONE OF THEM LIE?
2. Here we have two genealogies for Jesus which are different.
Are both telling the truth - OR DOES ONE OF THEM LIE?
3. The two must be intended to be the same.
They're genelaogies of Jesus. LoL! The reason they differ is
obvious. I guess it's just not obvious to you.
4. Therefore we have a real difference.
Duhh! Are you saying they're the same? (abuse snipped)
5. Therefore one or the other is a deliberate lie (not an accident)
They were written 1,900 years ago. Are you saying that not one single
person or god noticed the error and corrected it?
6. Therefore the bible has lied.
So what's your explanation? Please support your response if you don't
want it to be dismissed as a just-so story. (reiteration snipped)
It would be most interesting to see proofs of #1, #3, and #5.
It would indeed. Since these are your items, can you provide ...
(etc)
#5 is a non sequitur, of course.
Try supporting your contentions and then we'll discuss it. Otherwise
it's just desperate blather in the face of another Bible lie, isn't
it? I'm not impressed.
Here we see no attempt to engage with the argument at all, and an
attempt to avoid it.
#124.
And just who was the father? Was it the Holy Ghost:
Mat. 1:18 "...When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before
they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
Or was it actually Joseph, explaining why such a fuss is made over his
lineage from David:
Act. 2:30 "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of [David's] loins, according
to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;"
On the other hand:
Luk. 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph..."
As was supposed? This doesn't confirm a miraculous birth, but it does
cast doubt on Joseph being the father. Perhaps Mary was a little more
contrary than the Catholics would admit. Maybe she had simply become
pregnant through normal means, but not by Joseph, who got suckered
into marrying her and raising her ***** when the inventive Mary came
up with this fiction that he was the Son of God?
Again the question is raised: how does this bear on the question?
This is merely yet another Victorian-style "bible difficulty".
Keep sidestepping and telling just so stories. When you actually make
a real case for your position, I'll address it.
Again no effort to actually address the question of providing proofs
that the bible lies.
#125.
Mat. 1:21-23 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his
name Jesus...Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall
be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his
name Emmanuel..."
Huh? How is this illogical prophecy fulfilled when it explicitly
states that the child will be named 'Emmanuel'?
Ditto.
That pretty much sums you up... (abuse snipped)
No response here either, other than personal abuse.
#126.
Mat 2:1 "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of
Herod the king..."
Luk 2:2 "(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius [Quirinius] was
governor of Syria.)"
Sulpicius Quirinius was governor starting 6AD. Herod died 4BC. There
is no record of Quirinius conducting a census prior to 6AD and no
logical reason for doing so. Nor can it be explained by pretending
this referred to one of Herod's sons, since they were never kings.
Ditto. The argument is not that the bible contains mistakes. It is
that it LIES.
Yep. When the same "mistakes" are knowingly repeated for close to
2,000 years, they're lies. This is not supposed to be some fictional
story some guy made up to illustrate a principle, where mistakes would
be understandable and perhaps even irrelevant.
This is supposed to be an instruction manual and guidebook to
salvation from God, dictated by the Holy Spirit. (etc)
But the question is not theology. It is a question of fact. Does the
bible contain statements which you can show are lies? So far you have
not done so.
Note that the argument above relies on absence of evidence
I freely acknowledge that you're the leader in the field in that
department.
Note the personal abuse as a substitute for rational argument.
and as such has no validity.
#127.
Mat. 2:19-23 "But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord
appeareth...saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother,
and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the
young child's life....But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in
Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go
thither...And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be
called a Nazarene."
Why is it, that God is powerless to help Joseph... (jeering snipped)
So Matthew has Joseph and Mary hastening to Egypt to escape the evil
Herod who plans on killing all children under the age of two years,
just to get rid of this messiah. Mark, the original gospel, and Luke
make no mention whatsoever of anything like Matthew's colorful history.
Luke has them hanging out in Jerusalem, presenting their newborn at the
temple (for what? Is God so stupid he doesn't know when his own son is
born?!), and then a leisurely return to Nazareth.
Both of these story lines cannot be true.
(further ranting snipped)
(abuse snipped)
Why not? But still, this shows nothing.
Obviously not to you. It's not hard to see why.
And that's all that is offered. Not even an attempt to expand on this
proof -- just abuse.
In summary, we have nothing here.
And we still don't know just why
atheists live by values that they cannot discuss.
Atheist values come from knowing and doing what's right because it is,
How do you know that it is right?
Keep working on fine-tuning that uppity vacuous arrogance. As long as
all of your work goes into that, you'll never have to get your hands
dirty actually dealing with the fact that the Bible has over 150 lies
in it, not one of which you've overturned despite all your
hypocritical and vacuous blather.
<smile>
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Holy Bible Lies #121 - 130 |
03 Apr 2007 06:32:11 PM |
|
|
On Apr 3, 3:44 am, "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Apr, 23:57, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 2, 4:01 pm, "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I thought it might be amusing to see what sort of stuff an atheist can
come up with to prove "the bible lies".
I thought it would be even more amusing to see just how many excuses
the theist apologists can come up ... (abuse snipped)
Note the change of subject. Somehow it's no longer about the OP, or
my response to it. It's about me. Not a good sign, when the
challenge is to rational discussion.
Nothing is about you, rest assured.
Of course sad and stupid
people will rely mainly on smear, innuendo and assertion,
(abuse snipped)
<smile>
but who knows, perhaps there might be something.
On the other hand, can anyone imagine someone with so little in their
life to sit down and think up 50 reasons, never mind 130??!!!?
It takes no time at all ... (snip)
<smile>
That suits you. Rustic Village Idiot. It's a good look for you.
On 1 Apr, 02:25, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
#121.
Jesus' lack of faith:
Nah. 1:7 "The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble"
Or
Mat. 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?"
How inventive of the gospel fairy-tale spinner to put the exact words
of Psalm 22 into his mouth for dramatic effect? Matthew, as we shall
see, was obsessively fond of cribbing from old scripture.
One sees nothing in this which is "a lie". Merely an incoherent jeer,
No, that's what your response is. Why is *that* not a surprise? Hey...
And why it is that you think your simply gainsaying what I wrote
somehow constitutes a valid, or a supported, or a rationale
objection? Is it because you already arrogantly ... (paragraphs of abuse snipped)
<yawn>
Go ahead and take a nap. The you can imagine you're getting somewhere
in your dreams - you know, pretend you've slammed down a devastating
critique instead of impotently chanting "No it isn't" and then
accusing *me* of avoiding the argument! LoL!
The fact is that this quote is in Psalm 22. Is it more likely that
the writer of "Matthew" got it from actually witnessing some miracle-
working son-of-a-god stating such a patently *assinine* thing, or does
it make more sense ... that he's quite brazenly LYING about who said it
and when? (snip)
What's the evidence either way? But of course this destroys the
argument. The argument is that this is proof of lying. Now somehow
it's "is it more probable that..." That, of course, is not proof.
Go ahead and show me where the word "proof" appears anywhere in my
statements anywhere in this series. Or you can pompously and
vacuously blather. Play to your strengths, Rogie.
And of course, by all means continue to pontificate without addressing
the issues, without offering support or rationale for your claims, and
without looking at the overall picture (you're gonna get bitten if you
don't. Trust me).
which relies on an unstated premise, that no-one can quote the OT in
the NT without proving it a lie.
That would be something wouldn't it? I never stated it, as you admit,
but I did state it since you've declared it to be so by fiat alone, in
complete isolation from anything else I've written. LoL!
No answer, then.
Not one you can grasp, obviously. But you do try, sweetie, don't
you? You try *so* hard.
Quite why this should be so we are
not told.
Not in language that's anywhere near your reading grade evidently.
Not even an attempt to answer the point made.
What point? LoL! When you can make an argument that's just a tad but
more intellectual than "no it isn't", I'll take you seriously, okay?
Your position, then, is that Jesus actually did say this? What's your
evidence?
Let's keep our position clear.
My position is perfectly clear and it's not what you're trying to
pretend it is. But go ahead and misdirect from the material and from
my responses to your comments, and arrogantly assume my position as
well as your own. It'll make it so much easier on your straw men and
vacuity if you can argue both sides, won't it, if you don't actually
deal with what I've said, and you don't actually try to support or
rationalise your comments.
The bible is accused of lying because
Jesus quotes scripture on the cross. I ask why this proves a lie.
Where was the word "proof" used again? I don't seem to be able to
find it. But then I'm not an arrogant, pompous ***** like you, Roger.
I tried it, but I couldn't quite get the skills down. But you're
really good at it! I'm *soooooo* in awe of you.
We're then invited to consider it probable that he did not,
Which of course you're right now running from by desperately trying to
misdirect again. But go ahead! Be my guest! Side-stepping and
tossing out straw men is obviously something you're far more skilled
at than offering support for your claims.
and so
Matthew composed it, and so that proves the bible is a lie. I query
this, of course. To this nothing is said but a change of subject.
You'd be the expert there. But *whatever* you do, don't address the
argument, for goodness sakes! Keep smoke-screening, misdirecting, and
falling in love with the sound of your own keyboard. It's much easier,
isn't it?
This will not do, and this particular 'proof' is now lying in pieces
all over the ground.
If you think so, Roger, because you're oh-so-brilliant and your
supported rationale was devastating and didn't sound a bit like "No it
isn't, now I insist that you address in detail my unsupported vacuous
opinion or I'll then start in with my *other* mantra that you're
avoiding the argument", did it now?
Not your evidence for him saying it, but your evidence that
there even was in the first place, a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son-
of-a-god to say it? (snip)
Note the change of subject from "is this proof of the bible lying".
Of course the Bible is lying if there never was a Jesus. Your
predictable inability to support your assumption of his existence in
these world-wide public fora has been recorded by Google.
Of course the Bible is lying if this Jesus never said what "Matthew"
claims he said. Your saying "no it isn't" and basking in your
hilarious misperception that your impotence and vacuity leave my
contention in this series lying in pieces has been recorded by Google.
Of course the Bible is lying if no one called Matthew even wrote
"Matthew".
Of course the Bible is lying if it promotes the gospel of Matthew as
an independent eye witness when "Matthew" is actually nothing more
than warmed over "Mark" with some leavening tossed in.
Of course the Bible is lying if it promotes this Jesus as the son-of-a-
god, yet this savior of the world, this chosen one, who can perform
endless miracles and raise the dead has so little faith in his dad
that he has to call from the cross "Why have you forsaken me, dad?"
Of course the Bible is lying if the author of Matthew added this
quotation from Psalms of his own accord for effect, when it was not
said by "Jesus" at all.
In your vacuous pomposity, you seem to have enmeshed yourself deeply
in an embarrassingly ironic comprehensive failure to see the big
picture. I warned you about this but you're evidently too arrogant to
listen.
Matthew didn't just quote this one passage from the Psalms. He quoted
many passages from the OT, often putting them into the mouth of this
Jesus character. It's fair to say he was obsessed with referring his
story back to the older scriptures.
For example, he changed Mark's wine and myrrh to vinegar and gall, not
because it's the truth (clearly one of them was lying) but for effect
- purely for effect.
Just out of interest, what evidence do you have that this Jesus was so
robotic that he could only parrot scriptures he read as a child
instead of coming up with something new?
Was he the Messiah or not? Was he the architect of a new world or
not? Or was he a cartoon character which Matthew could only animate -
since he wasn't real that he could meet him or hear a word he said -
not by inventing a new script for this character, but by recycling
ancient material?
So yes, I don't have a problem in asserting that it's a lie. This is
not the same as *your* lie, Roger - your repeated implciation and
suggestion I've been categorically insisting that each individual
instance of everything I write is incontravertible proof by and of
itself that every single thing in the Bible is a lie.
It is, however, one more reason why the Bible lies. I know you're
chronically unobservant, but what's escaped your limited attention is
that this series is not titled "150 individual stand-alone
incontravertible categorical proofs that the Bible Lies", but is
actually titled "Why the Bible Lies".
Got that, Sweetie?
Now unless you can come up with something measureably better than "No
it isn't" and your usual barrage of straw men, misdirection, smoke and
mirrors, this is the last time I'm going to give you this much
attention, okay? The rest of your blather, unless it really is of
significantly higher standard than you've hitherto shown yourself
capable, is going to be dismissed summarily, okay?
In short, I'll be doing *exactly* the same thing you've been
consistently doing from the off, but unlike you, *before* I did it, I
addressed in some detail every point you made, and I've supported my
position.
That's the difference between us Rogie-Baby.
#122.
God's idea of getting *****-faced:
Mal. 2:2-3 "...saith the LORD of hosts...Behold, I will corrupt your
seed, and spread dung upon your faces..."
Did the God of Love really say that, or is this another Bible lie?
Again we are not told how this relates to the proposition that the
bible is a lie.
Clearly you need to work on your comprehension skills and see the big
picture. No one can help you until you take off your blinkers. I
won't hold my breath.
No answer, then, except abuse.
No, this is argument. Abuse is in 12a. But if you think this is
abuse, you're seriously thin-skinned. Obviously the responses are
nothing that you're capable of grasping. I guess the term "big
picture" means nothing to the small-minded. But keep up your
pomposity and vacuity and see if you can't gather some real abuse,
Rogie. I'll bet you can do it. I have every confidence in your
personal impotence.
#123.
Mat. 1 lists 42 generations from Abram to Jesus ...
Matthew, unfortunately, misses several names
from his list. Between Joram and Ozias,
there should appear Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. It is of interest to
note that Matthew attempts to include very nearly every King of Judah
in his desperation to make Jesus royal.
Isaac Asimov in "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" points out that there
are some interesting names in the list. Boaz
(Booz) was begat of Rahab, most likely the same woman who was the
harlot in the story of the fall of Jericho (Jos. 2:1). Obed was a son
of Ruth, who was a Moabite, hardly of the line of David! Perez
(Phares) was one of twin sons born
to Tamar who pretended to be a harlot to trick the patriarch Judah
into having sex with her (the story of Onan, Gen. 38). And both the
"evil" queens Jezebel and Athaliah are associated with this genealogy!
Luk. 3 lists 14 more generations between Abram and Jesus than does
Matthew. ... I have seen this "explained"
in that one genealogy is that of Joseph, the other being that of Mary,
but nowhere does it confirm this in the Bible. The last couplet does
not say "Jacob begat Mary," or "Heli begat Mary." Both these
guys begat Joseph, according to the text - and since when does the
Bible give a damn about women's lineage? Never!
Even if one line was that of Mary, and the other Joseph, what is the
explanation for the two lines differing to the tune of fourteen
generations? ...
(irrelevant rant snipped)
How convenient. Here you're accusing me of assertion without basis,
and there you go snipping material and arbitrarily declaring it to be
irrelevant. (etc)
<smile>
Again we are forced to ask: how is this related to the proposition
that "the holy bible lies"? The argument has been omitted! It is a
fact that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ, not least in
being in different order.
So are both telling the truth - OR DOES ONE OF THEM LIE?
Probably it is best to READ the argument before responding....
Take that to heart, Roger. Take it to heart.
This fact has been known since ancient times, and commentated on,
and various solutions proposed, most of them relying on various cultural
practices of the time. But how does this relate to the question?
So are both telling the truth - OR DOES ONE OF THEM LIE?
Note the reiteration without having read the question.
LoL! Note the persistent avoidance of a simple question. That's what
scientists call **RUNNING AWAY**.
The silently proposed logic must be something like this:
1. No portion of the bible must differ in any way from any other
part, or appear to do so if read through 20th century eyes, or be
possible to read as differing, otherwise that proves that the bible is
a lie.
Are both telling the truth - OR DOES ONE OF THEM LIE?
2. Here we have two genealogies for Jesus which are different.
Are both telling the truth - OR DOES ONE OF THEM LIE?
3. The two must be intended to be the same.
They're genelaogies of Jesus. LoL! The reason they differ is
obvious. I guess it's just not obvious to you.
4. Therefore we have a real difference.
Duhh! Are you saying they're the same? (abuse snipped)
5. Therefore one or the other is a deliberate lie (not an accident)
They were written 1,900 years ago. Are you saying that not one single
person or god noticed the error and corrected it?
6. Therefore the bible has lied.
So what's your explanation? Please support your response if you don't
want it to be dismissed as a just-so story. (reiteration snipped)
It would be most interesting to see proofs of #1, #3, and #5.
It would indeed. Since these are your items, can you provide ...
(etc)
It's been noted by both myself and Google that you very quickly side-
stepped all of this. Nice footwork Rogie-Baby. Do you hire yourself
out as a dance partner? Foxtrot your forte by any chance?
#5 is a non sequitur, of course.
Try supporting your contentions and then we'll discuss it. Otherwise
it's just desperate blather in the face of another Bible lie, isn't
it? I'm not impressed.
Here we see no attempt to engage with the argument at all, and an
attempt to avoid it.
Argument? You're mantra of "No it isn't?" An argument is a connected
series of statements to establish a definite proposition. It isn't
just contradiction. Argument is an intellectual process.
Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other
person says.
So when you've actually addressed my material and supported your
objections (Note: chanting "No it isn't" is neither a supported
argument nor is it rational), thereby demonstrating not only that you
actually understand what is taking place here, but also that you have
a rational or supported objection to it, then we can get together
again, okay, Rogie-Baby?
#124.
And just who was the father? Was it the Holy Ghost:
Mat. 1:18 "...When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before
they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
Or was it actually Joseph, explaining why such a fuss is made over his
lineage from David:
Act. 2:30 "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of [David's] loins, according
to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;"
On the other hand:
Luk. 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph..."
As was supposed? This doesn't confirm a miraculous birth, but it does
cast doubt on Joseph being the father. Perhaps Mary was a little more
contrary than the Catholics would admit. Maybe she had simply become
pregnant through normal means, but not by Joseph, who got suckered
into marrying her and raising her ***** when the inventive Mary came
up with this fiction that he was the Son of God?
Again the question is raised: how does this bear on the question?
This is merely yet another Victorian-style "bible difficulty".
Keep sidestepping and telling just so stories. When you actually make
a real case for your position, I'll address it.
Again no effort to actually address the question of providing proofs
that the bible lies.
Show me where I stated that is my objective, please. Or get a clue,
whichever is easiest, because easiest is what works for you, isn't it
sweetie, no matter how vacuous or irrelevant it is? Caricature your
opponent, paint all atheists with the same brush from the off, dance
around the meterial without ever actually engaging it, give
"responses" that, when you boil them down, equate to "no it isn't",
and then vomit up the gall (or was it myrrh?) to accuse your opponent
of doing *eaxactly* what you're unilaterally doing, and smile like a
village idiot, all the while pretending you're actually accomplishing
anything beyond the furtive masturbation of a stunted intellect.
#125.
Mat. 1:21-23 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his
name Jesus...Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall
be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his
name Emmanuel..."
Huh? How is this illogical prophecy fulfilled when it explicitly
states that the child will be named 'Emmanuel'?
Ditto.
That pretty much sums you up... (abuse snipped)
No response here either, other than personal abuse.
You get what you deserve Rogie-baby. Until and unless you show you've
got something to object with other than gibbering "No it isn't", you
deserve neither respect nor attention.
#126.
Mat 2:1 "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of
Herod the king..."
Luk 2:2 "(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius [Quirinius] was
governor of Syria.)"
Sulpicius Quirinius was governor starting 6AD. Herod died 4BC. There
is no record of Quirinius conducting a census prior to 6AD and no
logical reason for doing so. Nor can it be explained by pretending
this referred to one of Herod's sons, since they were never kings.
Ditto. The argument is not that the bible contains mistakes. It is
that it LIES.
Yep. When the same "mistakes" are knowingly repeated for close to
2,000 years, they're lies. This is not supposed to be some fictional
story some guy made up to illustrate a principle, where mistakes would
be understandable and perhaps even irrelevant.
This is supposed to be an instruction manual and guidebook to
salvation from God, dictated by the Holy Spirit. (etc)
But the question is not theology. It is a question of fact.
And you're effectively stating that this is a fact: that Jesus
actually said those words. All without a shred of support. What
"facts" do you actually have?
Do you have a fact that there was a Jesus-Christ, miracle-working son-
of-a-god?
No!
Do you have a fact that this Jesus said *anything* that this "Matthew"
claims he said?
No!
Do you have a fact that *Matthew* actually wrote the gospel bearing
that name?
No!
Do you have a fact that the author of Matthew was an eye witness to
events?
No!
Do you have a fact that this Jesus was actually the son-of-a-god,
miracle-working savor of planet Earth?
No!
(sounds like a comic book when it's put like that doesn't it? This is
a job for **Savior-Man**!
Damsel Indistress: Oh Savior-Man You got here just in time!
Savior-man: I'm sorry, Ms. Indistress, I tried to get here sooner,
but my father forsook me, and I got very cross....)
Do you have a fact that Matthew *didn't* do the same thing here that
he was quite obviously doing in many other places in his gospel,
namely lifting sentences from OT scripture and putting them into this
Jesus's mouth or into his so-called life story not because any Jesus
said or did those things, but because he wanted to make his story
resonate with a certain class of people?
No!
So we have a gospel, claiming to be that of Matthew, but we don't know
who wrote it, pretending to be an eye witness, when he clearly wasn't,
about a person for whom there's no evidence supporting their very
existence, a person who, we're told said/did/experienced all these
things, when there's no impetus or rationale to believe that he did,
and it turns out that these things are actually lifted, often verbatim
or nearly so, from earlier scriptures, and this thing that he says on
the cross, this thing that the only son of the only creator of
everything, who was sent here deliberately to fulfil one single
purpose, gets into a position where he's actually fulfilling this
purpose cries out, "Dad, what's going on here?"
And you're saying that's not fiction?
You're too cute Rogie.
Does the
bible contain statements which you can show are lies? So far you have
not done so.
This from Johnny-Come-Lately, who steps in at Item number one hundred
and twenty-one, says, "No it isn't", and thinks he's god almighty?
LoL! Do you do stand-up by any chance?
Note that the argument above relies on absence of evidence
I freely acknowledge that you're the leader in the field in that
department.
Note the personal abuse as a substitute for rational argument.
LoL! That's a classic. This from the hypocrite who launched into his
very first response with slurs on atheists now playing the wounded
chick? This from the hypocrite who has done nothing more than chant
the standard theist "No it isn't!" mantra, who by-passed the bulk of a
detailed response to his comments, pretending his opponent hasn;t
offered rationale? LoL! You're priceless. No, my bad. You're
worthless.
and as such has no validity.
#127.
Mat. 2:19-23 "But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord
appeareth...saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother,
and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the
young child's life....But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in
Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go
thither...And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be
called a Nazarene."
Why is it, that God is powerless to help Joseph... (jeering snipped)
So Matthew has Joseph and Mary hastening to Egypt to escape the evil
Herod who plans on killing all children under the age of two years,
just to get rid of this messiah. Mark, the original gospel, and Luke
make no mention whatsoever of anything like Matthew's colorful history.
Luke has them hanging out in Jerusalem, presenting their newborn at the
temple (for what? Is God so stupid he doesn't know when his own son is
born?!), and then a leisurely return to Nazareth.
Both of these story lines cannot be true.
(further ranting snipped)
(abuse snipped)
Why not? But still, this shows nothing.
Obviously not to you. It's not hard to see why.
And that's all that is offered. Not even an attempt to expand on this
proof -- just abuse.
That's what you get for being the way you are - vacuous, hypocritical,
pompous, stupid. Sorry, but these are your problems. I'm doing you a
favor by telling you. Your friends won't.
In summary, we have nothing here.
And we still don't know just why
atheists live by values that they cannot discuss.
Atheist values come from knowing and doing what's right because it is,
How do you know that it is right?
Here we go. Is torturing children right, Roger? I don't torture
children. but you would have to and like it if your god told you it
was the right thing to do. So my values don't change with the wind.
Yours by definition aren't even yours. They're the sky pixie's, and
you have to do what he orders because you're not defined by logic and
common sense, but by what the sky-pixie dictates you do. Look at the
prisons. Are they full of atheists or are they full of theists? It
really is that simple.
Keep working on fine-tuning that uppity vacuous arrogance. As long as
all of your work goes into that, you'll never have to get your hands
dirty actually dealing with the fact that the Bible has over 150 lies
in it, not one of which you've overturned despite all your
hypocritical and vacuous blather.
<smile>
What a snappy dresser you are, Roger. That idiot smile most
definitely complements your profound vacuity and chronic impotence.
Buh-bye now.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Holy Bible Lies #121 - 130 |
07 Apr 2007 01:43:11 AM |
|
|
On 3 Apr 2007 16:32:11 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:44 am, "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Apr, 23:57, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 2, 4:01 pm, "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I thought it might be amusing to see what sort of stuff an atheist can
come up with to prove "the bible lies".
I thought it would be even more amusing to see just how many excuses
the theist apologists can come up ... (abuse snipped)
<reluctantly snipped for brevity>
I know that you know you are fighting a losing battle.
Roger's mind doesn't belong to him.
It belongs to an ignorant group of superstitious sheep hearders,
nomadic desert dwellers and self serving preists who lived thousands
of years ago and who through their writings have convinced him that
even for a twenty-first century adult a child like gullibility and
belief in fantastic myths are virtues.
Roger doesn't have a need for the truth, he has a need to believe.
And he's concerned about our morals yet he, like just about every
other believer in his particular superstition is more than willing to
claim that the immoral, cruel and evil things his god and his
followers have done for centuries are in fact virtuous.
Its sort of sad that any man would allow himself to be confused in
such a fashion.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Holy Bible Lies #121 - 130 |
06 Apr 2007 04:44:11 PM |
|
|
On Apr 7, 1:43 am, wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 16:32:11 -0700, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:44 am, "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Apr, 23:57, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 2, 4:01 pm, "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I thought it might be amusing to see what sort of stuff an atheist can
come up with to prove "the bible lies".
I thought it would be even more amusing to see just how many excuses
the theist apologists can come up ... (abuse snipped)
<reluctantly snipped for brevity>
I know that you know you are fighting a losing battle.
Roger's mind doesn't belong to him.
It belongs to an ignorant group of superstitious sheep hearders,
nomadic desert dwellers and self serving preists who lived thousands
of years ago and who through their writings have convinced him that
even for a twenty-first century adult a child like gullibility and
belief in fantastic myths are virtues.
Roger doesn't have a need for the truth, he has a need to believe.
And he's concerned about our morals yet he, like just about every
other believer in his particular superstition is more than willing to
claim that the immoral, cruel and evil things his god and his
followers have done for centuries are in fact virtuous.
Its sort of sad that any man would allow himself to be confused in
such a fashion.
atheist@home#1554
I don't see how this is a losing battle - I kicked his stupid ***** and
he fled! The one who lost there is this fake god of theirs and his
"Holy Bible" full of lies.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Holy Bible Lies #121 - 130 |
07 Apr 2007 06:36:58 AM |
|
|
On 6 Apr 2007 14:44:11 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Apr 7, 1:43 am, wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 16:32:11 -0700, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:44 am, "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Apr, 23:57, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 2, 4:01 pm, "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I thought it might be amusing to see what sort of stuff an atheist can
come up with to prove "the bible lies".
I thought it would be even more amusing to see just how many excuses
the theist apologists can come up ... (abuse snipped)
<reluctantly snipped for brevity>
I know that you know you are fighting a losing battle.
Roger's mind doesn't belong to him.
It belongs to an ignorant group of superstitious sheep hearders,
nomadic desert dwellers and self serving priests who lived thousands
of years ago and who through their writings have convinced him that
even for a twenty-first century adult a child like gullibility and
belief in fantastic myths are virtues.
Roger doesn't have a need for the truth, he has a need to believe.
And he's concerned about our morals yet he, like just about every
other believer in his particular superstition is more than willing to
claim that the immoral, cruel and evil things his god and his
followers have done for centuries are in fact virtuous.
Its sort of sad that any man would allow himself to be confused in
such a fashion.
atheist@home#1554
I don't see how this is a losing battle - I kicked his stupid ***** and
he fled! The one who lost there is this fake god of theirs and his
"Holy Bible" full of lies.
In the sense that he gave it up you win.
I meant of course that there is no way to get him to even try to think
his way beyond the meme that controls his mind.
The only thing you have to offer him is the truth while the meme
offers him far more, false as it is.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Holy Bible Lies #121 - 130 |
06 Apr 2007 06:58:05 PM |
|
|
On Apr 7, 6:36 am, wrote:
On 6 Apr 2007 14:44:11 -0700, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Apr 7, 1:43 am, wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 16:32:11 -0700, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:44 am, "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Apr, 23:57, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 2, 4:01 pm, "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I thought it might be amusing to see what sort of stuff an atheist can
come up with to prove "the bible lies".
I thought it would be even more amusing to see just how many excuses
the theist apologists can come up ... (abuse snipped)
<reluctantly snipped for brevity>
I know that you know you are fighting a losing battle.
Roger's mind doesn't belong to him.
It belongs to an ignorant group of superstitious sheep hearders,
nomadic desert dwellers and self serving priests who lived thousands
of years ago and who through their writings have convinced him that
even for a twenty-first century adult a child like gullibility and
belief in fantastic myths are virtues.
Roger doesn't have a need for the truth, he has a need to believe.
And he's concerned about our morals yet he, like just about every
other believer in his particular superstition is more than willing to
claim that the immoral, cruel and evil things his god and his
followers have done for centuries are in fact virtuous.
Its sort of sad that any man would allow himself to be confused in
such a fashion.
atheist@home#1554
I don't see how this is a losing battle - I kicked his stupid ***** and
he fled! The one who lost there is this fake god of theirs and his
"Holy Bible" full of lies.
In the sense that he gave it up you win.
I meant of course that there is no way to get him to even try to think
his way beyond the meme that controls his mind.
The only thing you have to offer him is the truth while the meme
offers him far more, false as it is.
atheist@home#1554
There's no arguing that! LoL!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Holy Bible Lies #121 - 130 |
08 Apr 2007 09:59:12 AM |
|
|
On Apr 3, 6:32 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:44 am, "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Apr, 23:57, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Apr 2, 4:01 pm, "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I thought it might be amusing to see what sort of stuff an atheist =
can
come up with to prove "the bible lies".
I thought it would be even more amusing to see just how many excuses
the theist apologists can come up ... (abuse snipped)
Note the change of subject. Somehow it's no longer about the OP, or
my response to it. It's about me. Not a good sign, when the
challenge is to rational discussion.
Nothing is about you, rest assured.
Of course sad and stupid
people will rely mainly on smear, innuendo and assertion,
(abuse snipped)
<smile>
but who knows, perhaps there might be something.
On the other hand, can anyone imagine someone with so little in the=
ir
life to sit down and think up 50 reasons, never mind 130??!!!?
It takes no time at all ... (snip)
<smile>
That suits you. Rustic Village Idiot. It's a good look for you.
On 1 Apr, 02:25, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
#121.
Jesus' lack of faith:
Nah. 1:7 "The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble"
Or
Mat. 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voic=
e,
saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my Go=
d,
why hast thou forsaken me?"
How inventive of the gospel fairy-tale spinner to put the exact w=
ords
of Psalm 22 into his mouth for dramatic effect? Matthew, as we s=
hall
see, was obsessively fond of cribbing from old scripture.
One sees nothing in this which is "a lie". Merely an incoherent je=
er,
No, that's what your response is. Why is *that* not a surprise? Hey=
..=2E.
And why it is that you think your simply gainsaying what I wrote
somehow constitutes a valid, or a supported, or a rationale
objection? Is it because you already arrogantly ... (paragraphs of a=
buse snipped)
<yawn>
Go ahead and take a nap. The you can imagine you're getting somewhere
in your dreams - you know, pretend you've slammed down a devastating
critique instead of impotently chanting "No it isn't" and then
accusing *me* of avoiding the argument! LoL!
The fact is that this quote is in Psalm 22. Is it more likely that
the writer of "Matthew" got it from actually witnessing some miracle-
working son-of-a-god stating such a patently *assinine* thing, or does
it make more sense ... that he's quite brazenly LYING about who said =
it
and when? (snip)
What's the evidence either way? But of course this destroys the
argument. The argument is that this is proof of lying. Now somehow
it's "is it more probable that..." That, of course, is not proof.
Go ahead and show me where the word "proof" appears anywhere in my
statements anywhere in this series. Or you can pompously and
vacuously blather. Play to your strengths, Rogie.
And of course, by all means continue to pontificate without addressing
the issues, without offering support or rationale for your claims, and
without looking at the overall picture (you're gonna get bitten if you
don't. Trust me).
which relies on an unstated premise, that no-one can quote the OT in
the NT without proving it a lie.
That would be something wouldn't it? I never stated it, as you admit,
but I did state it since you've declared it to be so by fiat alone, in
complete isolation from anything else I've written. LoL!
No answer, then.
| | | | | |
