Reply to "Was Mary really a virgin?"

[Eedee]

But, there is good evidence for a Creator. There are many arguments one can make, read the writing of Augustine or Thomas Aquinas.

Bro, for everyone's sake... edit your post and take his name out haha. Thomas Aquinas is a synonym for logical fallacies.

[CrashBand]

In what way am I close minded? Dont be a cunt crashband. Give an example that supports ur theory.

Sorry for coming across as a cunt. I said "don't be a 'lil bitch" in regards to your complaint that people were "discussing members" as opposed to the topic. So you were being a bitch and it didn't come out of no where.

I literally gave an example in that post though.

I'll give it again though eh?

Do you think this statement is closed-minded --> "I believe what I believe and no one will ever convince me other wise no matter what."

[Eedee]

In what way am I close minded? Dont be a cunt crashband. Give an example that supports ur theory.

Sorry for coming across as a cunt. I said "don't be a 'lil bitch" in regards to your complaint that people were "discussing members" as opposed to the topic.

I literally gave an example in that post though.

I'll give it again though eh?

Do you think this statement is closed-minded --> "I believe what I believe and no one will ever convince me other wise no matter what."

I hate to butt in and all, but bigray, come on, dude. Stop arguing that your comment above in bold is NOT close-minded. Then everyone can move on and we can have a nice debate without the name-calling.

[Eedee]

Dude Im just retailing stop making u and ur little Atheist crew look so innocent. If u hate to bud in why bother?

Stop saying im close minded because of one little thing I said, all u guys have done is focus on 1 comment i made and ignoring anything else i have said..quite frankly u guys are the ones being close minded and not even seeing how open minded I am.

Either add to the conversation or bud out.

The comment they've been quoting is close-minded. How can you not see this? And don't even try to turn the tables back on us about it. Man up and admit that what you said is close-minded and the conversation can carry on. It's become stagnant because of this (and has resulted in name-calling as well).

And I AM adding to the conversation; I'm trying to keep the debate flowing and only trying to help.

Oh, and please stop capitalizing "Atheist". It's not a proper noun. It's just a word.

[classthe_king]

1. The prophecies were vague. Really? Let me give you an example, you let me know if it's vague. I was going to post the whole thing but it is too long. Go read Isaiah 53. That's one of the most detailed prophecies Jesus fulfilled, there's over 300 of them similar to that. If you would like, I can point you to a table that shows all of them. They aren't "vague" as you claim.

Are you serious? That prophecy was extremely vague. All it said was a) He will not be attractive and he will be hated by mankind. How do we know he wasn't attractive? We've never seen him, plus considering around 85% of humans aren't attractive I think that's pretty easy to fill. b) That he will willingly be punished for our sins, "like a lamb being lead to a slaughter." That's also extremely vague. They didn't say how he would be killed or anything like that. They didn't even say he would be killed. There was no specifics. That's called being vague. c) He would come back to life. The way they described this was SO vague that it's hard to even tell if they meant coming back to life literally or having a legacy that lives on after you die. Again no specifics. Plus you're ignoring the fact that the people who made up the story of Jesus knew of these prophecies so they easily could have wrote him so that he fulfilled them.

I mean look at the language he used,

"He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."

"Like one from whom people hide their face, he was despised, and we held him in low esteem."

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed."

Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand."

Nothing in that was specific.

2. There's no proof Jesus existed? There's more proof for Hercules than Jesus? You obviously said this just to be a troll (the Hercules part). You make the claim that there's NO historical writers during Jesus' time that mentioned him. Once again, you're wrong.
Do some reading about the following people.

I actually have read about all those people. So prepare to get your facts straight.

1. Flavius Josephus

Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay. Also, Josephus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1)

2. Cornelius Tacitus

the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts. Also, just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals.

3. Pliny the Younger

Pliny was born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Those are just a few of the historians from Jesus' time whose writings we still have and who mention Jesus' death and "supposive" resurrection (They weren't believers in Him, they simply mentioned his history) and they all agree with the Gospel accounts.

They were all written well after the fact. None of them were alive during the crucifixion so they all just "heard it" from other christians.

And yes, it is foolish and ignorant to say Jesus never existed. It's VERY foolish to say the disciples didn't exist and it's also been proven historically that they all died for their belief in the Resurrection. Tell me, why would they die for something they themselves made up? That's not logical. They truly did believe that Jesus resurrected (and obviously that they walked with him before his death). Now, you could make the argument that the entire thing was a hallucination but that's also ridiculous because over 500 people claim to have saw Jesus after his Resurrection.

I didn't say the disciples didn't exist. I said the disciples didn't write the Gospels...which they didn't. That's not even disputed, any christian historian will tell you that. It even mentions it in some bibles.

3. Believing in God isn't something you should just believe without any evidence. Correct. This isn't a debate about the existence of God so I didn't go on and on about that. But, there is good evidence for a Creator. There are many arguments one can make, read the writing of Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. If you would like me to go into more detail, I will but I think that would move this entirely off subject.

I have also read Thomas Aquinas arguments and they are all very bad arguments and have been proven so countless times. There is no good argument for a creator, or not one that I've read.

4. No, I do not like to be involved in religious debates but "super intelligent atheists" are here who make unfounded claims such as there being more proof for Hercules than Jesus and then attack bigray so I decided to step in. You can ask my good friend Eedee (who is an atheist) if I enjoy debating religion. I really don't. But, I am an unashamed believe of Jesus Christ.

That's weird because I've been proving everything you've said wrong this entire debate. Every claim you've made is unfounded.

5. Scientists don't believe the universe had a beginning. Well, actually, most do believe that the Big Bang points to the universe having a beginning. They haven't found any evidence that anything existed before the Big Bang. I'm not sure what credible scientists make the claim that the universe never had a beginning but Stephen Hawking (who we both know is an atheist) believes the universe had a beginning and, as far as I can read on Nasa about the story of the universe, they also teach the universe had a beginning.

You're getting beginning confused with creating. This universe that we're in had a beginning but it wasn't created then. And you're wrong about Stephen Hawking, here's a quote from him that explains it nicely,

“One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary. The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.”

Many of your "facts" and "arguments" are unfounded and are simply personal attacks to try to piss people off.

Nice try, come again.




Christians are so fun

[classthe_king]

I am a Christian - Orthodox and I believe everything from the Old Testament Greek Bible...nothing and no one will or can change my mind.

Close enough

[classthe_king]

The quote I was referring to was from the other Was Mary A Virgin Thread. I never once said it was from this thread and which thread you said it in has nothing to do with whether or not you are closed or open minded.

[classthe_king]

I have moved on. I just want you to make a point or leave this thread because you have yet to do so.

[classthe_king]

No, I never said that you said it in this thread. That's irrelevant because you still said it and it still applies to this thread.

[Eedee]

Ur more a a hypocrite than I thought u were....this is the exact same thing Geno and Eedee did with there thread yesterday in the tag team battle for fuck sakes

Anyway drop it all of u and move on.

Eh?

And no it's not. This thread is an extension (and/or a reply) to the SAME topic, so the comments there can be attributed to THIS topic.

[PAINKILLƎR]

bigray needs to lay off that weed, too many casualties. A moment of silence for those dead brain cells.

[classthe_king]

I'm happy at least tripleninethree is smart enough to have an actual conversation.

[Eedee]

Wow! whatever u guys are pathetic...keep attacking me when I did nothing to anyone.

You're doing your fair share of attacking as well.

[TripleNineThree]

But, there is good evidence for a Creator. There are many arguments one can make, read the writing of Augustine or Thomas Aquinas.

Bro, for everyone's sake... edit your post and take his name out haha. Thomas Aquinas is a synonym for logical fallacies.

Eedee, you just have to point out the flaws in my argument don't you? Haha just kidding, you're right. I've actually never read anything by Aquinas yet, only Augustine. I did a simply google search for Aquinas + logical fallacies and I don't have much of a rebuttal...

[TripleNineThree]

Bigray.. As a fellow believer, you are making the faith look dumb. I'm also not entirely sure why I'm responding to the question "Was Mary really a virgin" because the Apostle Paul himself says that things of the Spirit (such as the miraculous) is foolishness to those without the Spirit. That's one of the reasons I usually don't debate religion and my main reason to come into this debate was to help bigray but man.. You called CrashBand a "cunt". I promise you that Jesus would not call unbelievers "cunts" for not agreeing with him in regard to spiritual matters. Bigray, here is a good quote.

"Nothing says hypocrite faster than Christians expecting non-Christians to behave like Christians when half the Christians don't act like it half the time." - Andy Stanley

That's my two sense, interesting debate everyone.