Jump to content

When was Jesus Born?


God Save Us From Christians
 Share

Recommended Posts

No one really knows. We celebrate the 25th of December as the Mass of Christ, only because an early Roman committee adopted that date.

Most scholars seem to point to 4 BC as the year of birth, but what do the Gospels say about this?

Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea.

Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria.

But he couldn't have been born during the administration of these two rulers. Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son.

Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth.

The fact is that the early Christians had absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth."

Think of it -- one hundred and thirty-three different years, each one of which is held to be the year in which Christ came into the world.

And yet we are supposed to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, Inerrant and Infallible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

*chuckles* Just one of the problems with the concept of a real Jesus who walked the earth, as described in the Bible. Most people, Christian (which is ironic) or not, seem woefully ignorant of the Jesus myth. The kind of 'evidence' for the existence of Jesus wouldn't be good enough to prove someone guilty of jaywalking in court.

The faithful are supposed to be proud of believing stuff that has no evidence and/or makes no sense, but they take it one step further--declaring to as many people around them as they can that it IS true, this really DID happen, and whoever denies that is EVIL!

<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*chuckles* Just one of the problems with the concept of a real Jesus who walked the earth, as described in the Bible. Most people, Christian (which is ironic) or not, seem woefully ignorant of the Jesus myth. The kind of 'evidence' for the existence of Jesus wouldn't be good enough to prove someone guilty of jaywalking in court.

The faithful are supposed to be proud of believing stuff that has no evidence and/or makes no sense, but they take it one step further--declaring to as many people around them as they can that it IS true, this really DID happen, and whoever denies that is EVIL!

<_<

BORINGGGG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one really knows.  We celebrate the 25th of December as the Mass of Christ, only because an early Roman committee adopted that date.

Most scholars seem to point to 4 BC as the year of birth, but what do the Gospels say about this?

Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea.

Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria.

But he couldn't have been born during the administration of these two rulers.  Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son.

Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth.

The fact is that the early Christians had absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth."

Think of it -- one hundred and thirty-three different years, each one of which is held to be the year in which Christ came into the world.

And yet we are supposed to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, Inerrant and Infallible.

Who gives a $hit !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one really knows.  We celebrate the 25th of December as the Mass of Christ, only because an early Roman committee adopted that date.

If you're not a plagiarist, you should let Jim Lee know that you wrote the article that he has posted here:

http://www.geocities.com/inexileau/did_jesus_really_live.htm

Most scholars seem to point to 4 BC as the year of birth, but what do the Gospels say about this?

Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea.

Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria.

But he couldn't have been born during the administration of these two rulers.  Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son.

Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth.

"When was he born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these two rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth."

http://www.geocities.com/inexileau/did_jesus_really_live.htm

I detect a similarity.

Here's a more complete account of the birth of Jesus narratives.

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/li...y/infancy1.html

The fact is that the early Christians had absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth."

Think of it -- one hundred and thirty-three different years, each one of which is held to be the year in which Christ came into the world.

Why think of that? How does it matter?

And yet we are supposed to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, Inerrant and Infallible.

It's not like the Bible picks out the wrong date for Jesus' birth.

If you want to pick on inerrancy, stick with the discrepancies of the text. Uncertainty about the birth date doesn't really have anything to do with it.

Oh, and don't plagiarize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're not a plagiarist, you should let Jim Lee know that you wrote the article that he has posted here:

Oh, and don't plagiarize.

So, you have nothing to offer other than the typical Christian response of "It really doesn't matter" when it comes to things in the bible you don't like.

And tell your friend Jim not to plagiarize either:

Here is the site where I found the information:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...eally_live.html

I've just begun to tear apart your fraudulent religion.  It's a good thing Christians rely so much on faith, because nothing else about the religion stands when studied.  Ah, but Christians don't study either.  The Bible Says it........

And in another post I gave you a challenge - whose life did I describe?  You didn't answer that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave
It's not like the Bible picks out the wrong date for Jesus' birth.

If you want to pick on inerrancy, stick with the discrepancies of the text.  Uncertainty about the birth date doesn't really have anything to do with it.

Huh?

I would have thought that a 10 year discrepancy between the birth dates of Jesus in the gospel stories was a rather glaring and important one. Especially considering that the authors of these gospels were supposedly writing under the direct inspiration of the 'holy ghost'.

Mabe the holy ghost was having an off day at the time these gospels were being written.

Or maybe, (as many Bible scholars suggest), the authors really didn't have a clue when Jesus was born and were just passing on the rumours and legends that they had picked up along the Christian grapevine.

I read the apologetic that you refered to.

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/li...y/infancy1.html

It is chock full of maybes, and 'how it could have been' speculations. I found it entirely unconvincing, and I think that any other half rational person would also.

These apologists really do clutch at straws in an attempt to defend what is so obviously mythology.

It is a tragic thing to witness an adult resorting to such desperate measures to prop up a primitive superstition.

But I guess that they think that their eternal life depends upon it, and they don't really want to die, so they resort to all sorts of mental contortions and gymnastics in an attempt to stave off the inevitable.

Each to his own, (shrugs), but I don't want them teaching my kids that sort of preposterous nonsense in school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not like the Bible picks out the wrong date for Jesus' birth.

If you want to pick on inerrancy, stick with the discrepancies of the text.  Uncertainty about the birth date doesn't really have anything to do with it.

Huh?

Not a bad idea for you to read it again, from the look of things.

I would have thought that a 10 year discrepancy between the birth dates of Jesus in the gospel stories was a rather glaring and important one.

You're conflating "year" and "date" while ignoring my admonition to stick with the discrepancies in the text when arguing about inerrancy.

Would you agree that a "discrepancy between the birth dates of Jesus in the gospel stories" is a discrepancy of the text, or not?

Especially considering that the authors of these gospels were supposedly writing under the direct inspiration of the 'holy ghost'.

Mabe the holy ghost was having an off day at the time these gospels were being written.

Or maybe, (as many Bible scholars suggest), the authors really didn't have a clue when Jesus was born and were just passing on the rumours and legends that they had picked up along the Christian grapevine.

Those two versions are compatible with some very minor adjustments.

I read the apologetic that you refered to.

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/li...y/infancy1.html

It is chock full of maybes, and 'how it could have been' speculations. I found it entirely unconvincing, and I think that any other half rational person would also.

You weren't supposed to find it convincing, but hopefully you learned something.

The author accurately describes the way history is done. You get some sketchy details from the remaining writings and artifacts, and you try to reconcile them sensibly. All of history is filled with maybes and 'how it could have been' speculations. The further back you go, the more the uncertainty. Or at least that's the tendency.

These apologists really do clutch at straws in an attempt to defend what is so obviously mythology.

Mainstream scholarship accepts the existence of a real person named Jesus. As such, Jesus will have had a real birthdate (unless the Bible and mainstream scholarship are incorrect, of course).

It is a tragic thing to witness an adult resorting to such desperate measures to prop up a primitive superstition.

Are you talking about your suggestion that Jesus is a myth, or something else?

But I guess that they think that their eternal life depends upon it, and they don't really want to die, so they resort to all sorts of mental contortions and gymnastics in an attempt to stave off the inevitable.

Why do you think that consideration of the possibility of an early redaction is a mental contortion or gymnastic (for example)?

Each to his own, (shrugs), but I don't want them teaching my kids that sort of preposterous nonsense in school.

Let your kids learn a history with no question marks or uncertainties to it. :excl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom from Fla.
Huh?

I would have thought that a 10 year discrepancy between the birth dates of Jesus in the gospel stories was a rather glaring and important one. Especially considering that the authors of these gospels were supposedly writing under the direct inspiration of the 'holy ghost'.

Mabe the holy ghost was having an off day at the time these gospels were being written.

Or maybe, (as many Bible scholars suggest), the authors really didn't have a clue  when Jesus was born and were just passing on the rumours and legends that they had picked up along the Christian grapevine.

I read the apologetic that you refered to.

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/li...y/infancy1.html

It is chock full of maybes, and 'how it could have been' speculations. I found it entirely unconvincing, and I think that any other half rational person would also.

These apologists really do clutch at straws in an attempt to defend what is so obviously mythology.

It is a tragic thing to witness an adult resorting to such desperate measures to prop up a primitive superstition.

But I guess that they think that their eternal life depends upon it, and they don't really want to die, so they resort to all sorts of mental contortions and gymnastics in an attempt to stave off the inevitable.

Each to his own, (shrugs), but I don't want them teaching my kids that sort of preposterous nonsense in school.

Who would listen to anything a Dingo dave would have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BORINGGGG.

Not too boring for you to click "reply," typetype, and click "add reply." <_<

But yes, compared to all of the wonders of reality (especially if you look at astronomy), religion is boring and dumb. It doesn't explain anything, doesn't really satisfy any curiosity. Your "what" is all kinds of nonsensical, fantastic events. Your "why" is 'mysterious ways' (in other words, you avoid giving a true reason). Your "how" is nothing but "he willed it, it happened." Now that's boring.

No wonder the Bible Belt has some of the lowest average IQs in the country...that kind of nonsense stunts one's mental development; that is, once it is made to be one's whole world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest from PA.
Not too boring for you to click "reply," typetype, and click "add reply." :blink:

But yes, compared to all of the wonders of reality (especially if you look at astronomy), religion is boring and dumb. It doesn't explain anything, doesn't really satisfy any curiosity. Your "what" is all kinds of nonsensical, fantastic events. Your "why" is 'mysterious ways' (in other words, you avoid giving a true reason). Your "how" is nothing but "he willed it, it happened." Now that's boring.

No wonder the Bible Belt has some of the lowest average IQs in the country...that kind of nonsense stunts one's mental development; that is, once it is made to be one's whole world.

What a lot of nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave
Who would listen to anything a Dingo dave would have to say.

Would you prefer Buffalo Bill, or perhaps Crocodile Dundee?

What difference does it make what screen name I use?

How about responding to some issues? Or is that beyond your limited abilities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bewildered
Huh?

The author accurately describes the way history is done. You get some sketchy details from the remaining writings and artifacts, and you try to reconcile them sensibly. All of history is filled with maybes and 'how it could have been' speculations. The further back you go, the more the uncertainty. Or at least that's the tendency.

The gospels are not history they are propaganda. The same goes for much of the rest of the bible.

Mainstream scholarship accepts the existence of a real person named Jesus. As such, Jesus will have had a real birthdate (unless the Bible and mainstream scholarship are incorrect, of course).

Again you throw out claims without any facts to back them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave
Bryan wrote: “You're conflating "year" and "date" while ignoring my admonition to stick with the discrepancies in the text when arguing about inerrancy”

A year is a date.

Bryan wrote:” Those two versions are compatible with some very minor adjustments.”

Yeah right. A 10 year discrepancy is only a ‘minor' adjustment. Ha Ha!

Bryan wrote:” You weren't supposed to find it convincing, but hopefully you learned something.

The author accurately describes the way history is done. You get some sketchy details from the remaining writings and artifacts, and you try to reconcile them sensibly.”

I didn’t see anything I hadn’t read before. Just the same old, same old.

The apologist didn't really try to explain anything 'sensibly'. He was merely desperately attempting to justify the indefensible.

Bryan wrote:” Mainstream scholarship accepts the existence of a real person named Jesus. As such, Jesus will have had a real birthdate (unless the Bible and mainstream scholarship are incorrect, of course).”

Yes, I'm aware of that. But there have also been some very convincing arguments put forward which suggest that the gospel Jesus is actually a conflation of several different personalities, mixed up with legends borrowed from various pagan sources. Be that as it may, even granted that the gospel Jesus was a real individual, most reputable scholars admit that we really don’t have a clue what his true birthdate was. The canonical gospels report a 10 year discrepancy in birth dates, and no amount of hand waving will make it go away.

Bryan wrote:” Are you talking about your suggestion that Jesus is a myth, or something else?”

I’m saying that the birth narratives are obviously mythology.

Bryan wrote:” Why do you think that consideration of the possibility of an early redaction is a mental contortion or gymnastic (for example)?”

Early redaction of the gospel stories is almost a certainty. That’s why the birth narratives clash so glaringly with some of the other gospel narratives. It is obvious that the birth narratives were added to the gospels much later than some of the other legends about Jesus. Otherwise why do you think it is that Jesus’ mother Mary doesn’t seem to have a clue about her son’s divine nature or destiny in some of the ‘later’ gospel narratives?

For example it should be obvious that the gospel of Luke originally began at chapter 3.

Chapter 2 was added later, and chapter 1 was added last of all. This would explain the absurdity of Jesus being born of a virgin, but having his ancestry traced back to David through his father Joseph. It also explains Mary’s confusion about some of the pronouncements that Jesus is supposed to have made to her and to Joseph about his divine nature.

For example, if an angel had really announced to Mary that she was going to bear a child by being impregnated by the god Yahweh, then why would she be confused and dumbfounded when Jesus said that he had to be about his ‘father’s’ business? Why would she and Jesus’ brothers try to restrain him because they thought he had gone mad?

These are only a couple of random examples, there are many more.

Read the gospels of Matthew and Luke again carefully and with a critical eye, and unless you’ve been totally brainwashed, I’ll bet that these and other anomalies will jump out off the page at you. You will be amazed that you didn’t recognise them earlier for what they reveal about the evolution of the gospels as we know them.

Bryan wrote:” Let your kids learn a history with no question marks or uncertainties to it.  ”

Would you be happy if high school history teachers taught as historical facts that there existed in first century Palestine, a god-man hybrid named Joshua the Nazarene who was born as the result of an adolescent Jewish girl being inseminated by the Hebrew battle god Yahweh?

Would you be comfortable if they taught about angels singing in the sky, and other miraculous prodigies that heralded his birth?

That he walked on water?

That he cast demons out of people and into a herd of pigs?

That he magically trans-mutated water into wine?

That he routinely raised people from the dead?

That he restored sight to a congenitally blind man by rubbing muddy spittle in his eyes?

That he cured a deaf and mute man by sticking his fingers in his ears and spitting on his tongue?

That he miraculously fed 5000 people with five bread loaves and two small fishes?

That he magically killed a fig tree with a curse because it was not bearing fruit out of season?

Would you like it taught as a historical fact that he was killed, then came back to life, and that after several clandestine post-mortem appearances to a small group of his followers, flew away into the sky never to be seen again?

You’ve got to be joking!

At least I hope you’re joking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you be happy if high school history teachers taught as historical facts that there existed in first century Palestine, a god-man hybrid named Joshua the Nazarene who was born as the result of an adolescent Jewish girl being inseminated by the Hebrew battle god Yahweh?

Would you be comfortable if they taught about angels singing in the sky, and other miraculous prodigies that heralded his birth?

That he walked on water?

That he cast demons out of people and into a herd of pigs?

That he magically trans-mutated water into wine?

That he routinely raised people from the dead?

That he restored sight to a congenitally blind man by rubbing muddy spittle in his eyes?

That he cured a deaf and mute man by sticking his fingers in his ears and spitting on his tongue?

That he miraculously fed 5000 people with five bread loaves and two small fishes?

That he magically killed a fig tree with a curse because it was not bearing fruit out of season?

Would you like it taught as a historical fact that he was killed, then came back to life, and that after several clandestine post-mortem appearances to a small group of his followers, flew away into the sky never to be seen again?

You’ve got to be joking!

At least I hope you’re joking.

They're not joking at all. This is what they believe, and what the rest of the country to believe, and what they want as public school curriculum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A year is a date.

Yes it is, but when you ignore the context of what I wrote and substitute a different meaning for a word that conflicts with the context of what I wrote, you're committing a fallacy of equivocation.

A night out at the movies can be a date, too.

Yeah right. A 10 year discrepancy is only a ‘minor' adjustment. Ha Ha!

Straw man fallacy. You get one more before you will have convinced me that I'm wasting my time by responding.

I didn’t see anything I hadn’t read before. Just the same old, same old.

The apologist didn't really try to explain anything 'sensibly'. He was merely desperately attempting to justify the indefensible.

Which of his statements was the most "desperate" IYO? I'd like to see the quotation.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But there have also been some very convincing arguments put forward which suggest that the gospel Jesus is actually a conflation of several different personalities, mixed up with legends borrowed from various pagan sources.

Name one?

You're not allergic to evidence, are you?

Be that as it may, even granted that the gospel Jesus was a real individual, most reputable scholars admit that we really don’t have a clue what his true birthdate was.

Are you talking about the year of the day at this point?

The canonical gospels report a 10 year discrepancy in birth dates, and no amount of hand waving will make it go away.

Were you paying attention at all when it was suggested that a copyist may have altered Luke's account?

Why wouldn't that make it go away, and given the state of publishing in those days, why would you call it hand waving?

I’m saying that the birth narratives are obviously mythology.

Early redaction of the gospel stories is almost a certainty.

Huh. You didn't appear to think so when redaction of "Quirinius" was in question.

That’s why the birth narratives clash so glaringly with some of the other gospel narratives.

Are you talking about something other than the discrepancies between Matthew and Luke?

It is obvious that the birth narratives were added to the gospels much later than some of the other legends about Jesus. Otherwise why do you think it is that Jesus’ mother Mary doesn’t seem to have a clue about her son’s divine nature or destiny in some of the ‘later’ gospel narratives?

Because she lived with him during the interim?

For example it should be obvious that the gospel of Luke originally began at chapter 3.

Chapter 2 was added later, and chapter 1 was added last of all. This would explain the absurdity of Jesus being born of a virgin, but having his ancestry traced back to David through his father Joseph.

But it seems to leave unanswered the aspiration to rulership of Israel that is strongly emphasized in the narrative concerning Jesus' last days.

Why would Jesus have had "King of the Jews" (for example) accompany his crucifixion?

It also explains Mary’s confusion about some of the pronouncements that Jesus is supposed to have made to her and to Joseph about his divine nature.

For example, if an angel had really announced to Mary that she was going to bear a child by being impregnated by the god Yahweh,then why would she be confused and dumbfounded when Jesus said that he had to be about his ‘father’s’ business?

Jesus wondered the same thing, hence the question.

Now let's assume that Mary had no idea at all about who Jesus was.

Why would Jesus answer her as he did? How was she supposed to know?

Why would she and Jesus’ brothers try to restrain him because they thought he had gone mad?

Concern over the attention he was drawing? You're drawing from Mark, now, correct?

Where did Jesus' family suppose he was mad? Could you be specific?

These are only a couple of random examples, there are many more.

Yes, but are there any good examples?

Read the gospels of Matthew and Luke again carefully

Like you did? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont worry, Strife's idea of interesting is getting together with other men and hugging each other, or getting kisses on the neck from men, which leave him acting like a school girl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dingo Dave

Dear Bryan,

I have read some pretty lame apologetics defending the gospel narratives, but yours just about takes the cake.

I wrote:"A year is a date."

You wrote:"A night out at the movies can be a date, too."

Bwa ha ha! :lol::P

Do you want me to wreck my laptop? I nearly spat soda-pop all over the thing when I read that! You really are scraping the bottom of the apologetics barrel with this one aren't you?

That's even worse than the article you referred me to.

And I'm afraid your post doesn't become any more convincing as it progresses from there.

At the moment I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to address all the responses in your last post, so all I can suggest to you is that you go back and re-read the gospel stories as they appear in our contemporary 'New Testament' and try to figure them out for yourself.

If after doing this, you can't possibly see why I feel the way I do about them, then in my view, you have definitely been brainwashed beyond redemption. I'm sorry, but this is something that you'll have to overcome for yourself if you have the will to do so.

Either the gospel stories are true or they aren't. Either they were inspired or they weren't. Either they are reliable or they're not. These are the questions that you need to address in your own mind. I can't do that for you.

You need to use your common sense, and the gift of reason that nature has endowed you with to reach your own rational conclusions. If you are unable, or unwilling to do so, then virtually nothing I say or do is going to change your mind.

If your desire for immortality completely overides your common sense and your critical thinking abilities then that is your business. All I ask is that this sort of thinking is not promoted in our public schools to young and impressionable students.

There are plenty of good resources on the Internet, and in your local municipal or university library which will cover these issues in far greater detail than I ever could on a forum such as this.

This does not however, mean to imply that I don't have a response for all of the points you raised, it just means that I think I will be spending too much time in re-iterating material that you can easily find elsewhere, and which is freely available to anyone who is seriously interested in making sense of the narrative mess that we call the Gospels.

By the way, do yourself a favour if or when you do your research, and use one of the more accurate and reliable translations of the Bible such as the 'Revised Standard' version, or the 'New American Standard' version.

There are perfectly good, plausible, naturalistic explanations as to how and when the gospel stories evolved, and based on the abysmal track record of theologians and other religious cult leaders regarding the way the world really works, I'll stick with the naturalistic explanations thank you very much.

Every time religion has come into direct conflict with reality, it has always lost, big time, without fail.

That being the case, why would I continue to back a losing horse, just because I might happen to have some personal or emotional attachment to it?

Barring some miracle (which seem to be in very short supply these days), it would be absolute madness for me to do so.

Sorry, but I'm afraid I'm going with the odds, and calling the miraculous portions of the gospel stories just the way that I see them. That is, as either outright fabrications, or well intentioned myths and legends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dingo Dave
Dont worry, Strife's idea of interesting is getting together with other men and hugging each other, or getting kisses on the neck from men, which leave him acting like a school girl.

I thought that this was a moderated forum.

Why are the moderators allowing this kind of juvenile and libelous personal attack to pass their screening process?

I recall that not so long ago, the moderators got their panties in a twist over the use of the 'F' word, and apologised to readers for not having immediately edited it out.

Yet they give this sort of non-constructive garbage a free pass? WTF? :lol:

If this sort of idiotic posting is permitted, then why have a moderated forum at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dingo Dave
I wrote: "Read the gospels of Matthew and Luke again carefully."

Bryan wrote: "Like you did? lol"

Dear Bryan,

I noticed that you didn't address the last paragraph of my original post on the topic. Which read:

"Would you be happy if high school history teachers taught as historical facts that there existed in first century Palestine, a god-man hybrid named Joshua the Nazarene who was born as the result of an adolescent Jewish girl being inseminated by the Hebrew battle god Yahweh?

Would you be comfortable if they taught about angels singing in the sky, and other miraculous prodigies that heralded his birth?

That he walked on water?

That he cast demons out of people and into a herd of pigs?

That he magically trans-mutated water into wine?

That he routinely raised people from the dead?

That he restored sight to a congenitally blind man by rubbing muddy spittle in his eyes?

That he cured a deaf and mute man by sticking his fingers in his ears and spitting on his tongue?

That he miraculously fed 5000 people with five bread loaves and two small fishes?

That he magically killed a fig tree with a curse because it was not bearing fruit out of season?

Would you like it taught as a historical fact that he was killed, then came back to life, and that after several clandestine post-mortem appearances to a small group of his followers, flew away into the sky never to be seen again?"

Why is that? Is it because you truthfully don't believe all these 'tall tales', or did your fingers just get tired of typing by the time you got to this bit?

For your information, I have read all the gospels very carefully, several times. That's why I can't possibly take them seriously as being records of fact.

Would you care to inform me as to whether you actually believe these outrageous stories? "lol"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that this was a moderated forum.

Why are the moderators allowing this kind of juvenile and libelous personal attack to pass their screening process?

I recall that not so long ago, the moderators got their panties in a twist over the use of the 'F' word, and apologised to readers for not having immediately edited it out.

Yet they give this sort of non-constructive garbage a free pass? WTF?  :lol:

If this sort of idiotic posting is permitted, then why have a moderated forum at all?

Hmm...good point at the end there. I say KOTW removes moderation and replaces it with anonymous posts having the IP addresses attached to them, so we can tell just how many of these "guests" are the same person. :P Either that, or ban anonymous posting altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...