Biblical contradictions.

[Cavebear]

Not only the 12, but also to the 70.
Please go and read the Bible.
What test?
Since when did Christians claim there is a Test to determine if the Bible is correct?
Another straw man!
No "rhetorical gymnastics or dodging the point', since when are "a lot of Christians who believe just that" evidence of anything true or false in the Bible.
If someone sacrifices an animal thinking we should do it because it is in the OT, is the Bible wrong, or that person who misread what it said.
I dont allow interpretations from the Bible at all.
Just read what it says, and any child will agree that Jesus gave these miracles to those that "Believed", referring to the apostles that believed He rose from the dead.
See if you can find the verse, ..."and to those who believed(go to Strongs to get the tenses), this gifts will follow!"

And you are so demanding in your struggle to prove that the Earth was not a Mud ball earth, that not only did you deny any scientific discoveries that prove that the Earth was not a ball of burning magma; but you are so pre occupied that you still have to carry on on this thread.

Are you slowly wearing out yet?  Your whole premise that throwing biblical thoughts to we atheists is getting tiresome.  I don't usually reply to you, your "arguments" are rather weak.  You just aren't getting anywhere here.

My main objection is just that you are clutterring up the board with theistic nonsense.

[Mousetrap]

Cavebear,
Are you well today?
We are way past the Biblical test you and the Muslims failed.
We are now on the Question:
Did Jesus have 2 grandfathers?

Or do you only have 1? (hopefully you understand both living and dead)

Think before you answer, this is another setup to trap you pal!

[Cavebear]

Cavebear,
Are you well today?
We are way past the Biblical test you and the Muslims failed.
We are now on the Question:
Did Jesus have 2 grandfathers?

Or do you only have 1? (hopefully you understand both living and dead)

Think before you answer, this is another setup to trap you pal!

I understood your handle from the start.  You wish to trap people in biblical terms.  Yadda, yadda, yadda...  I don't care the least bit about that.

Your biblical tests matters only in your internal beliefs.  I really don't care about those either.  Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Norse, etc are all the same to me.  Sad remnants of superstitions fading away...

So. you want a question of importance once to you and some christians?  Fine...

"Did Jesus have 2 grandfathers?"

First, prove there was an actual "Jesus" to begin with.  Answer that one without circular reasoning from your religious text, and we can talk further.

[Mousetrap]

...So. you want a question of importance once to you and some christians?  Fine...

"Did Jesus have 2 grandfathers?"

First, prove there was an actual "Jesus" to begin with.  Answer that one without circular reasoning from your religious text, and we can talk further.

Well, lets see what I can remember about evidence that Jesus did live 2 000 Y ago.
1. The New Testament writers and the Apostles who went around teaching about Jesus. There was hundreds of thousands of witnesses when Jesus lived that would have stopped anyone to preach about Jesus amongst the Jews if it was a made up story.

However, you might claim that because I am quoting Christian sources, my facts are Bias.

So, what does non Christian pagans say about Jesus, if any thing at all.

1. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93 had two references to Jesus. There is a heck of a controversy on the first reference due to different manuscripts, but it does not influence the fact that both manuscripts does claim that Jesus was in Palestine and was the founder of Christian religion.
2. From Tacitus (90-110 AD)we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) â€" reports that fit with the time frame of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians â€" Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.
3.Thallus (52AD)
Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient his writings don’t even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who previously tried to explain away the darkness occurring at Jesus’ crucifixion:

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)"

4.Tacitus (56-120AD)
Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his “Annals’ of 116AD, he describes Emperor Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame:

“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, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
5.Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Sometime after 70AD, a Syrian philosopher named Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to encourage his son, compared the life and persecution of Jesus with that of other philosophers who were persecuted for their ideas. The fact Jesus is known to be a real person with this kind of influence is important. Mara Bar-Serapion refers to Jesus as the “Wise King”:

“What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?…After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men…The wise king…Lived on in the teachings he enacted.”
6. Phlegon (80-140AD)
In a manner similar to Thallus, Julius Africanus also mentions a historian named Phlegon who wrote a chronicle of history around 140AD. In this history, Phlegon also mentions the darkness surrounding the crucifixion in an effort to explain it:

“Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.” (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen (an early church theologian and scholar, born in Alexandria):

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)

“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)

“Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)
7. Suetonius (69-140AD)
Suetonius was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. His writings about Christians describe their treatment under the Emperor Claudius (41-54AD):

“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).” (Life of Claudius, 25:4)

This expulsion took place in 49AD, and in another work, Suetonius wrote about the fire which destroyed Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians for this fire and he punished Christians severely as a result:

“Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief.” (Lives of the Caesars, 26.2)

[Cavebear]

Well, lets see what I can remember about evidence that Jesus did live 2 000 Y ago.

I've read all that before.  It is hearsay that would never be accepted in a court.  All your direct references are hearsay and the individuals you mention lived later.  The Romans kept very good records and at the time, they never mentioned your deity...

[Mousetrap]

I've read all that before.  It is hearsay that would never be accepted in a court.  All your direct references are hearsay and the individuals you mention lived later.  The Romans kept very good records and at the time, they never mentioned your deity...

Mmmmm....
Nero was a Roman.
He killed the Christians wherever he could find them, because they refused to worship the Roman / Greek Gods.
There were 10 massive persecutions against the Christians from 60 Ad to 313 Ad because the Romans hated the Christians who refused to worship the Roman/ Greek gods.
The New Testament was already fully composed in 60 Ad and all the Christian apostles' letters was sent throughout the world where there were Jews and Christians. The oldest fragments of papyri dates from 78 Ad, and a huge lot between 80 to 199 Ad.
Taken into consideration that these letters and Gospels was used by Christians who were living among Paul and the other Apostles, disciples and thousands of witnesses who knew Jesus, who went open armed into martyrdom for their religion in Jesus, It is highly unlikely that such a story was a concoction.

On the other hand, never in history was there any doubt about the life of Jesus, only untill the 20th century did atheists begin to make this claim on superficial grounds.
Read Alvar Ellegard's proposition, and then you will find assumption upon assumption.
same with Robert M. Price. He can not give a single reference to any of his claims.

Where does this arguments come from one may ask?
Well, From a guy with the name Tom Harpur. and his follower Achariah s.
He was a follower of Gerald Massey.

Now, all te above tried to prove that Jesus never existed, was a mythological figure, was constructed from Pagan religions such as Osiris, Horis, Zeus, Bacchus, and even Mithra.

Guess what, not a single one could produce evidence to James White (exclude Massey who obviously was dead) when they were taken to accountability.
I have all the bookjs, and if you want to see what total fiction it contains, get it!
You will be astounded to the evidence contraire to what we have for the existence of Jesus.

[Cavebear]

Mmmmm....
Nero was a Roman.
He killed the Christians wherever he could find them, because they refused to worship the Roman / Greek Gods.
There were 10 massive persecutions against the Christians from 60 Ad to 313 Ad because the Romans hated the Christians who refused to worship the Roman/ Greek gods.
The New Testament was already fully composed in 60 Ad and all the Christian apostles' letters was sent throughout the world where there were Jews and Christians. The oldest fragments of papyri dates from 78 Ad, and a huge lot between 80 to 199 Ad.
Taken into consideration that these letters and Gospels was used by Christians who were living among Paul and the other Apostles, disciples and thousands of witnesses who knew Jesus, who went open armed into martyrdom for their religion in Jesus, It is highly unlikely that such a story was a concoction.

On the other hand, never in history was there any doubt about the life of Jesus, only untill the 20th century did atheists begin to make this claim on superficial grounds.
Read Alvar Ellegard's proposition, and then you will find assumption upon assumption.
same with Robert M. Price. He can not give a single reference to any of his claims.

Where does this arguments come from one may ask?
Well, From a guy with the name Tom Harpur. and his follower Achariah s.
He was a follower of Gerald Massey.

Now, all te above tried to prove that Jesus never existed, was a mythological figure, was constructed from Pagan religions such as Osiris, Horis, Zeus, Bacchus, and even Mithra.

Guess what, not a single one could produce evidence to James White (exclude Massey who obviously was dead) when they were taken to accountability.
I have all the bookjs, and if you want to see what total fiction it contains, get it!
You will be astounded to the evidence contraire to what we have for the existence of Jesus.

I have no doubt there were christians.  But there were mithrists too.  Was he a deity?  Odinist, Osirisists, also.  Were those deities?

[Mousetrap]

I have no doubt there were christians.  But there were mithrists too.  Was he a deity?  Odinist, Osirisists, also.  Were those deities?

In all my studies, all I tried to find was evidence that Jesus was a copy of say, the Osiris myth where Osiris died, was buried, rose on the third day. (as claimed by Massey, Harpur and AchariahS)
When I read the Egyptian book of the Dead, and many books on Egyptian Myths, this was so far from the truth, that anyone will find such a correlation as laughable. And these guys are selling millions of books on no factual evidence.
For instance.
Egyptian Mythology shows that Osiris and Isis were married, but they were brother and sister, children of Geb and Nut (Earth and Sky gods)
Their younger brother ,Set, then murdered Osiris, chopped him up and hid his body parts in different places in the Nile.
Some stories say that Osiris' wife, Isis managed to find Osiris' phallus, and managed to get pregnant.
This child was Horus.

Now, there is no way anyone can even closely connect this story with what Tom Harpus claims.
He says, Horus was the virgin birth child of Isis, the Son of God!
Horus could walk on Water, when asked where on earth did you find any reference on this, AchariahS said, Horus was the Sun God, and the sun shone and reflects on the Nile, giving raise to Jesus being able to do the same.

I myself tried to find any connection between other myths and Jesus, say The Trimurti in Hinduism where Brahma, Visnu and  Shiva is said to have been the ancient Trinity and the Christian Trinity was a copy of the sanskrit version.
Well, when I did my investigation, I found that the Trimurti dated only from 800 AD!
If best, the Indian Trimurti copied the Christian one.
On this Tom Harpur is silent! and AchariahS confused.

Look at Harpur and Mithra claiming Mithra had a virgin birth, 12 Apostles, died on a cros, and rose from the dead.
Well, the myth say, Mythra jumped out of Mother earth fully armed, with the 12 zodiac signs around him. It does not say that Mithra died, or was resurrected.

Guys, these Mythesists are lying through their teeth to sell books.

[Blackleaf]

No one could produce evidence that a person didn't exist? Yeah, that's a reasonable expectation to put on somebody. Not. Can you prove that Harry Potter never existed? Where's your evidence of that? It's quite telling when a theist is asked for evidence, and they reply with, "You can't prove that I'm wrong." Get out of here, you weak minded broken record.

[Mousetrap]

No one could produce evidence that a person didn't exist? Yeah, that's a reasonable expectation to put on somebody. Not. Can you prove that Harry Potter never existed? Where's your evidence of that? It's quite telling when a theist is asked for evidence, and they reply with, "You can't prove that I'm wrong." Get out of here, you weak minded broken record.

If ever I say, prove that Jesus did not exist, It will be a reflection of poor evidence.
What I do know is that it would be impossible for Jesus not to have existed.
The whole collective circumstances about His life is testimony of just that!
The Christian faith grew exponentially after the apostles went out to the Jews at first, then the Gentiles.
The Apostles, an disciples were not scared to lose their lives to testify that Jesus was God manifested in the Flesh, died on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.
They wrote about the life of Jesus, wrote letters, and some lived for 70 years after Jesus left the Earth, such as John.
Their disciples, such as Polycarp and Justin Martyr, gave their lives because they knew the apostles and Disciples.
If anyone were to have fed them lies, this history would never have happened.
Anyhow, to deny that Jesus never existed is totally in contrast with factual evidence.

[Baruch]

I have no doubt there were christians.  But there were mithrists too.  Was he a deity?  Odinist, Osirisists, also.  Were those deities?

Yes, in the sense that deities make sense at all.  Cultural totems.

[Baruch]

I've read all that before.  It is hearsay that would never be accepted in a court.  All your direct references are hearsay and the individuals you mention lived later.  The Romans kept very good records and at the time, they never mentioned your deity...

Courts say that Citizen's United is constitutional.  Fuck courts.

But yes, there was no historical Jesus.  Just the fictional one, same as Jupiter.  But that was relevant to people then, even if not to people now.  The idea that Christianity started Gentile, and totally free of any Gentile influence (aka paganism) is a-historical.  Jewish synagogues grew out of Jewish polytheism, and Christian churches initially grew out of Hellenistic Jewish chavurah (fellowships) ... which were still semi-pagan at that time.  Judaism didn't become strongly monotheist until after Islam arrived.  Same with Christianity (though by that time it was entirely Gentile).

[Jason78]

Mousetrap.   We've already established that your book doesn't mean the things that are written in it.

If you can interpret those words to mean whatever you want them to mean, then who's to say they mean anything at all?

[Baruch]

If ever I say, prove that Jesus did not exist, It will be a reflection of poor evidence.
What I do know is that it would be impossible for Jesus not to have existed.
The whole collective circumstances about His life is testimony of just that!
The Christian faith grew exponentially after the apostles went out to the Jews at first, then the Gentiles.
The Apostles, an disciples were not scared to lose their lives to testify that Jesus was God manifested in the Flesh, died on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.
They wrote about the life of Jesus, wrote letters, and some lived for 70 years after Jesus left the Earth, such as John.
Their disciples, such as Polycarp and Justin Martyr, gave their lives because they knew the apostles and Disciples.
If anyone were to have fed them lies, this history would never have happened.
Anyhow, to deny that Jesus never existed is totally in contrast with factual evidence.

There was a real psychological change in the Mediterranean cultures at that time (well at least to get it to 10% of the population by the time of Constantine).  And it was initiated by Jews.  The pseudo-intellectualism of the Sophists are still going strong also ... alive today.  There were early "Christians" but they weren't Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox.  They were Jewish messianics.  And only Paul let Gentiles into his congregations.  At that time, Peter/James/Barnabas won the argument.  All Jews.  Most of the Gentiles that came into Paul's congregations were already associated with synagogues.  See "In Search of Paul".  If you want to see what an early congregation was like read "The Didache".  It isn't like church today, and it was mostly Jewish, mostly charismatic.  Early Hasidic.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Calm down pal.
Go and read Kant.
It wont hurt you.

Done.

I was able to find an english translation of Kant's Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels (1755) and did some reading. Of course, it's pretty slow going owing to the very different styles of science writing compared to modern papers. Nevertheless, I was able to decipher some things and understand enough of what Kant was talking about for our purposes. What I will examine is some of the specific claims that Kant puts forth in how the solar system formed, and contrast them to what modern science says.

Kant figures that density makes a difference in how a body is pulled by gravity, thus resulting in the differentiation of the nebular disk. It does not, as gravity couples only to mass. An elementary examination of the forces on a body vs its acceleration will reveal that the mass of the attracted body drops out of the equation. A ton of feathers is as hard to pull into a circular orbit as a ton of bricks, and takes as much work to do so. Density is irrelevant, and as such another force must come into play to differentiate the disk.

Nevertheless, Kant goes on to predict that the densities of the planets should increase as we get nearer the sun.

"In fact, the moon has twice the density of the Earth, and the Earth is four times denser than the sun, which, according to all assumptions, will be exceeded by the planets even closer to the sun, Venus and Mercury, with an even higher degree of density."

Kant is wrong on all but one count (the Earth is indeed about four times the density of the sun). Mercury and Venus are about the same density of Earth (5.51 g/cm³), with Mercury barely more dense (5.43 g/cm³), and Venus barely less dense (5.24 g/cm³). And the Moon is not twice the density of the Earth; it is just more than half as dense at 3.34 g/cm³. Mars is a bit denser than the Moon (3.93 g/cm³), but then we see this huge drop in density at Jupiter (1.326 g/cm³), continuing at Saturn (0.687 g/cm³), Uranus (1.27 g/cm³), and finally Neptune (1.638 g/cm³). In other words, we have one group of bodies that are nearly the same density near the inner solar system, and another group of bodies that are nearly the same density in the outer solar system, but with a precipitous drop between the two. That suggests more a phase transition than it does a continuous influence.

There's also the point that, if the nebular disk did differentiate according to density, where the density of material increases as we get closer to the center, why the density of the sun is very much less than that of the Earth even though it ought to be the most affected by this supposed effect. The sun should be made of iron, not hydrogen.

Kant has a stationary, unmoving disk go into net rotation from internal forces. No. Internal forces cannot cause the system to go into a net rotation in the same direction. That violates the conservation of angular momentum. Furthermore, this sudden change occurs without real explanation. There's no specified event that triggers this, and furthermore, forces that seemed to always be in play to prevent a preferred direction suddenly changed their behavior to cause this rotation to occur. This would not only violate conservation of angular momentum, but occurs in defiance of Newton's first law, and also conservation of linear momentum and conservation of energy.

Kant had no firm word to say about the origin of the solar system's moons, only to present a guess that he admits as a guess. "I consider this explanation only as a supposition which I do not have the confidence to establish." Fair enough, Kant.

Kent doesn't discuss any of the conservation laws, and it seems was ignorant of all of them, given how several of the steps in his hypothesis require their violation. The violation of energy conservation is at least understandable, because in Kant's time it really didn't seem that Leibnitz's vis vita (what we now call energy) was a strictly conserved quantity â€" it only seemed conserved in special circumstances. It was only decades after Allgemeine when thermodynamics started development that energy conservation came to be understood as strict, and that the graveyard of energy would turn out to be heat.

Finally, while Kant does make a stab at why the planets have differentiated like they do, with the densest stuff sinking to the center. While he makes no specific mention of molten rock, he does mention that the surfaces are volitile initially and later become firm. He also says, "This surface becomes firm and hardens while the deeper material has not yet sufficiently sunk down according to the measure of its specific gravity." The use of specific gravity is intriguing, because that is a property usually assigned to fluids, like liquids and gasses. This suggests a molten state for the initial Earth, and by extention the other planets.

So, the verdict?

Was Immanuel Kant on to something with his nebular hypothesis? Yes. Would that hypothesis, as stated by Immanuel Kant in his Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels in 1755, pass modern scientific muster? No. There are many problems with it that would necessitate its revision and/or abandonment. This is what has happened in modern theory of how the solar system came about. The modern theory is a nebular theory, but not one that Kant would recognize nor could take credit for.

I also uphold the charge that you are, indeed, misrepresenting Kant's ideas. You claimed that the idea of energy conservation came from Kant and was present in this particular theory, and it's quite evident that it is not. There is an inkling that Kant knew that motion and heat were related, but the nature of this relation is not clear nor quantified, and conservation laws are things of quantities. I also think that Kant was vaguely aware that the Earth would have to be hot and molten in order to differentiate as it did, in defiance to your own model of a cold, wet mudball. Furthermore, some of his predictions are in fact wrong, by any qualitative and quantitative critera, and as such would necessitate heavy revision â€" like where the angular momentum came from.

So, yeah, I'm not impressed.