Religion yet again

macunaima

Trooper
to see how this conversation got started go [a href=\'http://forum.maidenfans.com/index.php?showtopic=9586&st=30&#entry127268\' target=\'_blank\']here[/a]


[!--QuoteBegin-Conor+Jan 18 2006, 03:30 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Conor @ Jan 18 2006, 03:30 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]It's up to each individual what to believe in and how to interpretate the bible.
[snapback]127258[/snapback]​
[/quote]

There is a sense in which that is true, and a sense in which it isn’t. It true in the sense that there aren’t and shouldn’t be any positive laws governing what you believe. It’s up to you and not the government what you believe. And this is true of all beliefs, not just religious ones. If I believe the world is flat, that’s my own fucking business. But of course, the fact that you have the right to regulate your own beliefs does not mean that you can’t be wrong, and that there is no fact of the matter. You can (legally) believe whatever you want about the divinity of Jesus, but whether Jesus actually existed and whether he was indeed the son of God is not up to you.

As one not-so-famous american politician once said: everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts.


[!--QuoteBegin-Conor+Jan 18 2006, 01:22 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Conor @ Jan 18 2006, 01:22 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]how come people like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and Nicko Mc Brain believe in the good news?
[snapback]127237[/snapback]​
[/quote]

As far as I know, neither Einstein nor Hawking believe in the biblical narrative. They have both expressed some inclination to believe in some sort of higher power, and while I disagree even with this much, I don’t think only an idiot could have such an inclination. But believing in the narrative details of the bible is like believing that Zeus is really in charge of the thunder: Mythology plain and simple.

[!--QuoteBegin-Silky+Jan 18 2006, 01:42 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Silky @ Jan 18 2006, 01:42 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Well, the only proof is four historical documents that many millions of today's population believe.  But if you want to be picky and argue that that doesn't prove the Last Supper existed, then where's the proof for any of the other historical references before the 18th Century?  We have to trust our sources, and in regards to Jesus' life (not the miracles he performed), the New Testament is pretty accurate [...]  Can you not just accept that the Last Supper (or something very similar) probably took place around 2 millenium ago.  Is it that hard to believe that a religious teacher ate his last meal before he was crucified by the Roman government with his pupils?
[snapback]127247[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Just because some book says that an event P took place does not --by itself-- count as evidence. You would have to know a great deal about the author and the circumstances of composition before you treat it as evidence. Did this person have first-hand knowledge of the alleged event or is he writing decades and maybe centuries later? Is he a reliable, objective source, or do we have reason to think he might be lying or simply misrepresenting the events as a result of ideological bias? Are there other sources that corroborate the story -- real historical facts and personalities tend to leave a plethora of traces.

So, you ask where is the evidence for any other historical event? Well, by these standards, there is lots and lots of historical evidence out there -- yes, even for events that took place before the 18th century ([span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']why the 18th?[/span]). And while I’m not a biblical scholar, I don’t think there is much evidence of this sort for most of the New testament events. If all you have is a single report (or a small handful from an ideologically homogenous group) of an event or a personality, that is not very suggestive of the accuracy of the report. Add to that the the ideological interest on the part of powerful political and military forces starting in the 4th century AD in the truth of the events related in these texts, and you actually have strong reason to be suspicious. Again, I’m not a biblical (or Roman) scholar, but I don’t there is almost any extra-bilbical first hand accounts of the life of Jesus. Wouldn’t that be rather fantastic if Jesus really did lead the life the Bible claims he did? Also, the life of the biblical Jesus bears an number os striking similarities to events in the lives of pagan mythological heroes suggesting that perhaps the stories of Jesus were fictionalized syntheses of earlier heroic myths such as that of the egyptian deity Horus -- whom most of us already know something about.



[!--QuoteBegin-Silky+Jan 18 2006, 01:42 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Silky @ Jan 18 2006, 01:42 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]*assembles religious arguments ready for atheist onslaught of criticism*  [!--emo&:rolleyes:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/rolleyes.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'rolleyes.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
[snapback]127247[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Bring it on. [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 

Raven

Ancient Mariner
[!--QuoteBegin-macunaima+Jan 18 2006, 10:15 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(macunaima @ Jan 18 2006, 10:15 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]
Bring it on.  [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
[snapback]127274[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Yeah! [!--emo&:rolleyes:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/rolleyes.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'rolleyes.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
I chose the 18th century because most events before then are too far removed by misinterperetations from one generation to another to trust by word of mouth. And you take my remarks out of context completely-I was not saying the whole Bible was historically accurate, I was simply saying that it is likely to be accurate with respect to the idea that the Last Supper occurred. Even the Jewish and Islamic faiths believed Jesus existed, whatever about him being the Son of God.

And if the writers of the gosepls fabricated the entire New Testament (or at least the gospels), they pulled off the biggest hoax in history. As a historian, I would agree with your healthy cynicism, but if you believe the gosepl to be biased, what reason would the authors have to exagerrate the Last Supper? I don't think they would have gained anything from it Of course, we can't really know how accurate our translations of the Bible are, due to the numerous papal corruptions witholding or editing data, the Crusades and other events destroying vital evidence.

I don't want to have an argument about religion. No-one wins. If you don't believe in God, that's completely fine by me. My point in the other conversation was in reference to the Last Supper, which probably occured at its most basic level (the last meal of a religious teacher with his pupils), if you believe that Jesus existed, even as a man (and not the Christ). And the other two Abrahamic faiths DO believe Jesus lived, at least.

Just to close, I don't mind atheists at all. I don't mind if you don't believe as we do. My one objection is to people who insult us for our beliefs, as Maverick did. To generalise Christians as mindless sheep is insulting and very rude. I just want to make clear my opinion on this matter.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[!--QuoteBegin-Silky+Jan 22 2006, 09:28 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Silky @ Jan 22 2006, 09:28 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]My one objection is to people who insult us for our beliefs, as Maverick did.  To generalise Christians as mindless sheep is insulting and very rude.
[snapback]127497[/snapback]​
[/quote]
Little children aren't necessarily mindless sheep, but they still believe in Santa Claus. Sweet! Besides, xians themselves are quite happy to proclaim that the Lord is their shepherd. They apparently consider themselves sheep without any need of my sarcastic comments.

I do know very intelligent people who are believers. They still keep an open and sometimes quite critical mind on the matter and do not try to force their faith onto others. They are certainly not self-righteous Bible-bashers. That's what annoys me: when people consider themselves above the rest because of their religion (regardless of which it is).

You don't need a god to try and be a "better human being" (whatever this really is!), and believers aren't necessarily better because of their faith (it is all too often the contrary, quite sadly).



Go on, flame me now. [!--emo&^_^--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'happy.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 

macunaima

Trooper
[!--QuoteBegin-Silky+Jan 22 2006, 04:28 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Silky @ Jan 22 2006, 04:28 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]...And you take my remarks out of context completely-I was not saying the whole Bible was historically accurate, I was simply saying that it is likely to be accurate with respect to the idea that the Last Supper occurred.  Even the Jewish and Islamic faiths believed Jesus existed, whatever about him being the Son of God...

[snapback]127497[/snapback]​
[/quote]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you thought that the entire biblical narrative was historically reliable. But since I think that most of the New Testament is not historically reliable, then it would follow that one of the events in it (i.e the last supper) is also not likely to have happened. Of course, if there was some religious/political figure such as Jesus and he did have followers and a custom of having dinner with them, then by definition there must have been a "last one." But again, even if there was such a person with disciples, there is little reason to think that the event was anything like what is detailed in the Bible. And anyway, as I tried to suggest earlier, I don't think there is much evidence for a historical Jesus (son of God or not.)

And -- again, while I'm not an expert -- I don't think that the Jewish faith accepts the existence of Jesus. As far as I know they have noofficial position. They believe, of course, that a messiah will come to "save the Jews" ([span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']From what? is unclear. The Romans?[/span]) but they don't believe that Jesus was the messiah and, as far as I know, he figures nowhere in the tennants of the Jewish faith.

Islam, of course, does accept the existence of Jesus; they believe he was one of the great prophets of Allah. But I don't see this as additional evidence. Islam, as Silky pointed out, is a part of the Abrahamic tradition and Mohammed saw his relgion as a continuation, a development of the past. Just as Jesus claimed to bring a new convenant to replace to old Jewish Law, Mohammed claimed to bring a new (and final) covenant to replace (or correct) the teachings of Jesus. But again, that isn't additional evidence; Mohammed took the dominant religious traditions at the time as given, and built upon them. The fact that he accepted the existence of Jesus is likely due to the simple fact that such stories were already part of the dominant worldview of those he was seeking to convert.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Like PH a bit I suppose, I will refain from posting in this thread as I will look like a retard in the last discussion this is linked to. I'll just stay out of it because I know I will get flamed/angered by some people's posts. i believe in what I choose to believe in so I don't see how an argument on a forum can change that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Come on, Conor. Don't be afraid of Big Bad Mav! [!--emo&:p--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 

Raven

Ancient Mariner
[!--QuoteBegin-Maverick+Jan 22 2006, 08:44 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Maverick @ Jan 22 2006, 08:44 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Little children aren't necessarily mindless sheep, but they still believe in Santa Claus. Sweet! Besides, xians themselves are quite happy to proclaim that the Lord is their shepherd. They apparently consider themselves sheep without any need of my sarcastic comments.

I do know very intelligent people who are believers. They still keep an open and sometimes quite critical mind on the matter and do not try to force their faith onto others. They are certainly not self-righteous Bible-bashers. That's what annoys me: when people consider themselves above the rest because of their religion (regardless of which it is).

You don't need a god to try and be a "better human being" (whatever this really is!), and believers aren't necessarily better because of their faith (it is all too often the contrary, quite sadly).
Go on, flame me now.  [!--emo&^_^--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'happy.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
[snapback]127498[/snapback]​
[/quote]

I don't flame people (well, I try not to). But you did state (whether serious or not) that Christians have less than half a brain. And the whole 'The Lord is My Shephard' analogy refers to the fact that Jesus will look after his 'flock', not that they're literally sheep (it often refers to Jesus as a shephard who rescues one of his lambs, no matter how insignificant). As long as your general position isn't that we're all retards with no individuality, that's fine.

And I would sadly agree with your statement about many believers not being better for their faith (look at the whole prejudice over NotB!). Religion isn't necessary for being a good human, true, but the atheist who follows all the values of a good christian is sadly a rare occurance.

Sorry if I appeared as one of those self-righteous Christians in the last topic. I try not to be to oppressive with my beliefs. Lol-I've just realised how this topic has come from a little dispute over the inclusion of a religious event in a historical reference guide. I don't really see any point in these kinds of discussions-at the end of the day, I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe. We're not going to shift each other's opinions (we're all too stubborn!).

I would like to point out, as an end note, that although I am a Christian, I'm not really a great fan of organised religion. It's far too ritualised and often corrupt. And then you have the examples of the Troubles (Northern Ireland-two denominations, not even separate religions, fighting!) and the Israel-Palestine War as religion gone mad. Although, ironically, Islam's anti-semitism comes mostly from Hitler's influences on the Arabic-African states in the 1930's/40's. Discuss.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'd like to elaborate, but I have a pretty nasty headache that prevents me from thinking straight right now.

All I have to say is that you don't need to believe in a god to try and be a good person. I've tried many times, even as an unbeliever... and failed abysmally most of the time! [!--emo&:(--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/sad.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'sad.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well, I will give my humble opinion on the matter. I shall break it down to two primary theses.

Thesis I
Jesus existed.

Antithesis I
Jesus did not exist.

As an atheist, I feel obliged to prove the former wrong. As a historian, it is my job to prove the latter wrong.

Thesis II
The Biblical Jesus existed.

Antithesis II
The Biblical Jesus did not exist.

As an atheist, it is my job to prove the latter wrong. As a historian, it is also my job to prove the latter wrong; however, until the opposite has not been proven, I must take it as the truth.

I shall merge these two theses and antitheses together for the sake of a more comprehensive and understandable argument. I will push aside my atheist attribute and be a full-blooded historian now; that is the only way of being objective and non-destructive. Thus, I have to take into account that the Biblical Jesus may have existed.

The first thing a historian does -has to do- is check his sources. Our very first and primary source on Jesus is the Bible. Please note that if a source has been discredited on another part before, it does not mean that the source in total is not credible. It does, however, mean you have to view all contents of the source more critically.

First of all, I need to view the Bible critically:

-Which passages are relevant?
-Where does the Bible originate from?
-What was/is the Bible's intention?

The passages relevant can be found in the New Testament.
The origin of the Bible is unknown; all we can say with certainty is that is was written down in the first century AD.
The Bible intends to spread the word of Christ and gain new followers for the Christian belief. As such, the Bible is a programmatic script. It was never intended to be historical, but in fact to be a piece of religious propaganda. Furthermore, its author(s) is/are not known. There is no historical evidence of the Apostles, or that they actually wrote the gospels.
This is where we have problems with the Bible as a historical source. It is absolutely impossible to determin which parts of it can be regarded as historical and which not. What does a historian do in this case?

He looks for a second, primary, contemporary and independent source.

Jesus died around 30 AD. This was the time of the reign of the Roman Emperor Tiberius. Granted, word of Jesus spread during the 1st century, and was probably completely insignificant during the reign of Tiberius.

To make things easier, we will close the margin by setting a second date: The first major public appearance of Christians. This shall be the Christian pogroms during the reign of Nero. This was in 64, and there are several historians naming the Christians in that context. So, it would be interesting to look for previous mention of Christians, or even Christ himself.

The major source for the time between 30 and 64 AD is the Roman historian Suetonius, who wrote his "Vita Caesari", his "Lives of the Caesars" in about 120/30 AD. He used primary sources and his work survived unedited. These biographies of all Roman emperors from Caesar to Domitian are very enjoyable to read and I recommend them to anyone interested in Roman history.
Without further ado, I shall cite an interesting passage from the biography of Claudius (25):

He [Claudius] banished the Jews from Rome, because they, agitated by Chrestus, kept being riotous.

Many people interpreted this "Chrestus" to be Jesus, and if this were true, it would be the first historical reference to Jesus. However, there are a couple of problems with this interpretation:

-Claudius reigned from 41 to 54 BC. Christ was crucified during the reign of Tiberius. It is unlikely that the Christian faith had already gained such a foothold in the city of Rome itself that it needed action from the emperor himself; this was only possible after Paul's missions, which were during the reign of Nero.
-There are mentions of the name Chrestus in non-Christian, Jewish contexts.
-Since the New Testament includes the life and mission of Paulus, it was not yet "finished" during Claudius' reign. This would mean that there must be some sort of mention of this in the Bible. This is not the case.
-The Christians were notorious for their lack of violence in their early stages.

So, we can conclude that this "Chrestus" is most likely not Jesus.

There is only one further mention of Jesus in any surviving source that is both independent from events involving the Christians and from the Bible itself, the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Iosephus, a Jewish-Roman historian of the 1st century (XVIII, 3,3):

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

There is another note (XX, 9,1):

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions];

The former excerpt is often believed to have been added by Christian translators in the Middle Ages. The latter one is considered to be true.
If it was true, it would mean that Jesus had a brother, of whom there is no mention in the Bible.
Even more so, it still is not a proof; it is only a proof that Iosephus had taken notice of the Christians.

Furthermore, there are comparable stories to that of Jesus. For example, about fifty years after Buddhas death, he was credited with marvellous deeds such as walking on water. There is no mention of such miracles in any other previous source.

So, to conclude:

Is there credible and undeniable proof that Jesus existed as a person? No.
Is there credible and undeniable proof that Jesus did not exist as a person? No.
Is there credible and undeniable proof that Jesus existed as told in the Bible? No.
Is there credible and undeniable proof that Jesus did not exist as told in the Bible? No; however, there is more evidence to support this thesis than any other one.

What shall we do?

People can keep believing in the stories of the Bible, however they have to accept that most people have well-founded and reasoned doubts.
People can keep denying the stories of the Bible, however they have to accept that they have no final proof that can convince people who believe in them.


Lack of sources is a historian's worst problem.

Here are the sources I cited:
The Bible. I hope you all have one.
[a href=\'http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/JOSEPHUS.HTM\' target=\'_blank\']The Works Of Flavius Iosephus[/a]. I cited from Antiquities of the Jews.
[a href=\'http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suetonius-claudius-worthington.html\' target=\'_blank\']Suetonius: The Life Of Claudius[/a].
 

national acrobat

Ancient Mariner
[!--QuoteBegin-Perun+Jan 24 2006, 02:01 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Jan 24 2006, 02:01 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]There is only one further mention of Jesus in any surviving source that is both independent from events involving the Christians and from the Bible itself, the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Iosephus, a Jewish-Roman historian of the 1st century (XVIII, 3,3):
[snapback]127581[/snapback]​
[/quote]
Erm, not so actually. Tacitus, Annals 15.44:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus..."

Tacitus is a reliable historian, and this was written only 70 years later or so, so I'd say it was credible and undeniable proof that someone called Christ existed, regardless of whether he was the son of God or not.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
While Tacitus is in the most cases reliable, I'd still like to know where he got this information from. By the time he wrote, word about Christ was exclusively spread by the Christians.
 

national acrobat

Ancient Mariner
Having read Tacitus fairly extensively, I have never found any reason to doubt anything he writes as fact. The Annals is the earliest account of this period, and almost the only Latin account (Suetonius writing far less serious biographies, and Dio Cassius writing Greek history a centruy later). By the end of the first century AD, Christians were not that influential, especially not on an upper class Roman, who reached the consulship and governorship of Asia.

The few lines I quoted merely show Tacitus stating what Nero did to Christians, and explaining where the name 'Christians' came from, with no indication that this was news or rumour being spread by Christians themselves.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yes, but that's only a proof that the Christians themselves were around at the time of Nero. I never meant to discredit Tacitus, he is certainly one of the most reliable Roman historians, but what he writes resembles Jesus' story in the Bible in a nutshell, so I daresay what he wrote originally came from a Christian source. This differs him from Suetonius and Iosephus in my opinion. Suetonius got his information from the imperial archives -so he likely had real documents from Claudius' time telling of "Chrestus"- and Iosephus wrote from a Jewish perspective, which means it is more than unlikely that he is simply retelling Christian stories (remember, Jews and Christians were, metaphorically speaking, at war with each other at that time). However, I shall give Tacitus the benefit of doubt on his sources until my next edit or post.
 

Raven

Ancient Mariner
[!--QuoteBegin-Perun+Jan 24 2006, 01:01 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Jan 24 2006, 01:01 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions];

The former excerpt is often believed to have been added by Christian translators in the Middle Ages. The latter one is considered to be true.
If it was true, it would mean that Jesus had a brother, of whom there is no mention in the Bible.

[snapback]127581[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Actually, Jesus had many half brothers and sisters. It states in the gosepls that Joseph and Mary went on to have other children, one of them called James. This is not mentioned in any Roman scripts, as it is only briefly mentioned in the Bible (with reference to Jesus' return to Nazareth; if I find the passage I'll post it)
And the New Testament was written in the first century AD. The Old Testament was written long before.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[!--QuoteBegin-Silky+Jan 24 2006, 09:06 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Silky @ Jan 24 2006, 09:06 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]And the New Testament was written in the first century AD.  The Old Testament was written long before.
[snapback]127620[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Ummm... yes... I know... [!--emo&:huh:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/huh.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'huh.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[!--QuoteBegin-Silky+Jan 24 2006, 08:06 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Silky @ Jan 24 2006, 08:06 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Actually, Jesus had many half brothers and sisters.
[snapback]127620[/snapback]​
[/quote]
May I ask who the father was? Or did old Joseph have a bit on the side? [!--emo&^_^--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'happy.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 

DeadlySinner

Trooper
[!--QuoteBegin-Maverick+Jan 24 2006, 09:12 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Maverick @ Jan 24 2006, 09:12 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]May I ask who the father was? Or did old Joseph have a bit on the side?  [!--emo&^_^--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'happy.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
[snapback]127631[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Is that headache still keeping you from thinking straight? [!--emo&;)--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'wink.gif\' /][!--endemo--]

When Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was a virgin. God is his father, not Joseph, so the children Mary and Joseph got after Jesus became his half brothers and sisters.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[!--QuoteBegin-DeadlySinner+Jan 24 2006, 09:48 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(DeadlySinner @ Jan 24 2006, 09:48 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]When Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was a virgin.
[snapback]127636[/snapback]​
[/quote]
Look, mate, you're talking to a biologist. Next you're going to tell me that a geezer can get pregnant and that women can get prostate cancer. Pull the other one, it's got bells on! [!--emo&:p--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 

DeadlySinner

Trooper
[!--QuoteBegin-Maverick+Jan 24 2006, 09:57 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Maverick @ Jan 24 2006, 09:57 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] Next you're going to tell me that a geezer can get pregnant and that women can get prostate cancer.
[snapback]127641[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Well, mate, you're talking to a believer (a person who's brain is not functional). A geezer can get pregnant and women can indeed get prostate cancer!

[!--emo&:rolleyes:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/rolleyes.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'rolleyes.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[!--QuoteBegin-DeadlySinner+Jan 24 2006, 08:48 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(DeadlySinner @ Jan 24 2006, 08:48 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]

When Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was a virgin. God is his father, not Joseph, so the children Mary and Joseph got after Jesus became his half brothers and sisters.
[snapback]127636[/snapback]​
[/quote]
Excuse me but have you read The Big Book? Check out Matthew 1 v1-18
and Luke 3 v23-38. You 'll see that both Matthew and Luke write Jesus' family tree stating that Joseph is his father ( although it seems that they disagree on the grandfather and the rest of the ancenstors ). Why? Because according to the Jewish prophecy the Messiah would come from the bloodline of David ( the gospel writers agree on that one ). So why are they at great pains to prove that Jesus was born of a virgin when later they recognize Joseph as his father? [!--emo&:huh:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/huh.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'huh.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
Top