How do you explain this?

[Sarcogito]

Being born of a virgin was a small superficial prophecy? Do you know anyone else who has or ever will fulfill that? Really?

In today's age of artificial insemination?

But seriously, that isn't the kind prophecy that would serve as proof to the Jews. Think about it, how would could that be proved to them.
Jesus: Hey guys, my mom was totally a virgin when I was conceived. (Poor Joseph)
Jews: Prove it.
Jesus: Uhhhhhh

The other larger prophecies were obvious things that any Jew could look to for proof. A temple is a pretty obvious thing, after all.

 

[Grand Mal]

So you are talking about mythology, not actual history.

Perseus was born to a woman who'd been locked up as a child.

 

[MoSurveyor]

No she is not a public figure. Go figure. You know why? here are the differences between the Virgin mary and Jerry Falwell. I know it's hard for people like you to observe the differences, but I shall educate you.

Holy Mary is not and was not a leader of a institution. She had no properties that affected the public. She is not an opinion shaper. She isn't even the author of a book she happens to be a character in. So she's a private individual, like you and me, who is just popular.

You'd better tell the Catholics all that - most of them would probably call you "ill informed" at best.

 

[Grand Mal]

They are entirely dependent on eachother! If Christ is the true messiah, the Jews are 100% wrong. If the messiah is still to come such as the Jews believe, then Christians are 100% wrong. How do you fail to see that?

The messiah of the Jews isn't a god, he's a king from the line of David who will rule over the Jews.

From 'jewfaq.org'...

"Messiah
Anglicization of the Hebrew, "mashiach" (anointed). A man who will be chosen by G-d to put an end to all evil in the world, rebuild the Temple, bring the exiles back to Israel and usher in the world to come. It is better to use the Hebrew term "mashiach" when speaking of the Jewish messiah, because the Jewish concept is very different from the Christian one."

Jesus wasn't the Jews' messiah.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Oh no, I never stated my opinion on the virgin birth. I just said that your slanderous accusation that it wasn't is just that, slander. No proof. No evidence. No witnesses. Nothing. You are, as proverbially said "talking out of your ass".

And no, the burden of proof is not on me. It's on you. You're the one making the slanderous accusation. Bring on the evidence. I know its hard to bring on any evidence since it doesn't exist because what you are saying is a load of crock, but by all means. Give it you best shot.

What "slanderous accusation" was that? You had better re-read my posts before I start accusing YOU of slander.


If you don't believe the virgin birth myth then you've been raising quite a stink over nothing.

 

[DDD]

It's not the point. It's because it's the unknown, the unexplainable, and we have no explanation aside from the written testaments of the event, that we cannot contest the event. We can make suspicions, and that's ok. I'm not contesting the allowance of suspicions. I am contesting the allowance of slanderous suspicions passed on as the "logical thing" or the "common sense".

That is what idiots do.

"Oh, I have no evidence to support my accusations but it makes sense to me... so you come up with the evidence to counter my stupid statement. "

I disagree. Not everything needs to be proven. Common sense is sensually driven data, things that the majority of the world believes it is so. It is common sense that women giving birth have been previously insaminated hence they are not virgins. They could not be virgins due to the process of delivering also. To adults this is common sense and they do not have to be "idiots" to believe it. Should one need proof for this position they can find it with the medical community.

There is no proof that a woman can give birth and still be a virgin, proof that a divine intervention occurred, that God exists or that it can fvck, and that it choose Joseph's wife to fvck right on the first night he got married:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsGyv1CqRuQ

Asking for data before believing is the way smart people do it rather than "idiots" in my opinion.

 

[HumanBeing]

Sorry, I deal with proper legal system. The legal term is Defamation (of character). I finally looked it up to be sure.

Not to repeat myself, but given that defamation is something I have both sued and been sued for, I'd like to make this clear one last time: In the vast majority of countries, there are two main factors that have to be established for anti defamation laws to be applicable, and both factors must be present, not just one of them. They are

1) That the accusations are false. Countries vary on whether the burden of proof for this falls on the plaintiff or defense, but either way, if something is true you're generally allowed to say it. The only exceptions to that are nations like where i live, Cambodia, where defamation is far more useful if you can lock people up for telling the truth.

2) There has to be actual damage caused, and there has to be proof of that damage. If I say "Rainman05 is a rapist" but no one believes me, you will fail to get a successful prosecution anywhere except the UK (more on that in a moment). However, if I say "Rainman05 is a rapist" and then your boss calls you and says "Oi, HumanBeing said you're a rapist so you're fired" then you'd have grounds to sue me for defamation, because you have provable damages from my false accusation.

Rich people like to sue each other for defamation in the UK because it doesn't quite follow those rules, but everywhere else I've been does.

 

[Rainman05]

You'd better tell the Catholics all that - most of them would probably call you "ill informed" at best.

Alright. Tell me then, when was Mary ever involved in running the religious institution of the Church? Or when was Jesus for that matter running the institution of the Church? Never. Not a public figure.

 

[Rainman05]

Not to repeat myself, but given that defamation is something I have both sued and been sued for, I'd like to make this clear one last time: In the vast majority of countries, there are two main factors that have to be established for anti defamation laws to be applicable, and both factors must be present, not just one of them. They are

1) That the accusations are false. Countries vary on whether the burden of proof for this falls on the plaintiff or defense, but either way, if something is true you're generally allowed to say it. The only exceptions to that are nations like where i live, Cambodia, where defamation is far more useful if you can lock people up for telling the truth.

2) There has to be actual damage caused, and there has to be proof of that damage. If I say "Rainman05 is a rapist" but no one believes me, you will fail to get a successful prosecution anywhere except the UK (more on that in a moment). However, if I say "Rainman05 is a rapist" and then your boss calls you and says "Oi, HumanBeing said you're a rapist so you're fired" then you'd have grounds to sue me for defamation, because you have provable damages from my false accusation.

Rich people like to sue each other for defamation in the UK because it doesn't quite follow those rules, but everywhere else I've been does.

1) I don't know the law in Cambodia.
2) Yes, that's how it works to some extent and not just. If I suffer any kind of damage in my life due to your statements, you are liable. It is important to note however the differences however.

In a trial about defamation, so, Rainman is rapist. You say that, I accuse you of defamation and go before the judge and say: Look, humanbeing said I was a rapist and this happened because of that. The trial is not about whether I am a rapist or not, it's about whether in fact your statement caused me to suffer some damages because of it. Whether or not I am a rapist is irrelevant to the purpose of the trial.

If your statements are true, and I am a rapist, that is to be determined in another trial where I stand accused of rape.


So. In this current case. If Mary were alive and some idiots would say: Mary is unfaithful and she isn't a virgin; and Mary suffered some consequence due to that... That is defamation and the idiots who would say such a thing would in fact, be liable for it. Whether Mary was unfaithful or not is to be established in another case in which maybe someone (I don't know, God) sues Mary for unfaithfulness or something like that. Or if being unfaithful were a crime, the state would pursue an investigation into the allegation that Mary was unfaithful. But the result of the investigation and the subsequent trial (should there be proof that she was) would have no bearing on the fact that some bozos defamed her character.

 

[Rainman05]

What "slanderous accusation" was that? You had better re-read my posts before I start accusing YOU of slander.


If you don't believe the virgin birth myth then you've been raising quite a stink over nothing.

The slander is that Mary is not a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. That's defamation of character. Read the above comment for clarifications.

 

[HumanBeing]

1) I don't know the law in Cambodia.
2) Yes, that's how it works to some extent and not just. If I suffer any kind of damage in my life due to your statements, you are liable. It is important to note however the differences however.

In a trial about defamation, so, Rainman is rapist. You say that, I accuse you of defamation and go before the judge and say: Look, humanbeing said I was a rapist and this happened because of that. The trial is not about whether I am a rapist or not, it's about whether in fact your statement caused me to suffer some damages because of it. Whether or not I am a rapist is irrelevant to the purpose of the trial.

If your statements are true, and I am a rapist, that is to be determined in another trial where I stand accused of rape.


So. In this current case. If Mary were alive and some idiots would say: Mary is unfaithful and she isn't a virgin; and Mary suffered some consequence due to that... That is defamation and the idiots who would say such a thing would in fact, be liable for it. Whether Mary was unfaithful or not is to be established in another case in which maybe someone (I don't know, God) sues Mary for unfaithfulness or something like that. Or if being unfaithful were a crime, the state would pursue an investigation into the allegation that Mary was unfaithful. But the result of the investigation and the subsequent trial (should there be proof that she was) would have no bearing on the fact that some bozos defamed her character.

Cambodia was an example of where your idea that defamation can exist even when the accusations are supported by science might be correct. It isn't correct in the US, or most other places. In almost every developed nation on earth, the truth is considered a complete defense against accusations of defamation.

If someone claimed to be a virgin mother and someone else disputed it on scientific grounds, there is simply no possibility what so ever that the person who disputed it would be convicted of defamation. Your post mostly seems to relate to whether or not the law should actually work like that, which isn't something I have any intention of getting into. I was simply sharing some of my first hand knowledge about how defamation cases work (my experiences with it were in Europe and Asia), as it seemed to be relevant to the discussion. That's all

 

[Rainman05]

I disagree. Not everything needs to be proven. Common sense is sensually driven data, things that the majority of the world believes it is so. It is common sense that women giving birth have been previously insaminated hence they are not virgins. They could not be virgins due to the process of delivering also. To adults this is common sense and they do not have to be "idiots" to believe it. Should one need proof for this position they can find it with the medical community.

There is no proof that a woman can give birth and still be a virgin, proof that a divine intervention occurred, that God exists or that it can fvck, and that it choose Joseph's wife to fvck right on the first night he got married:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsGyv1CqRuQ

Asking for data before believing is the way smart people do it rather than "idiots" in my opinion.

There is no data except the writings we have. Since this is the only data available to work with, you either believe it or not. If you don't, that's fine. If you do, that's fine. But making up arguments to support a statement without any evidence or proof is stupidity and dressing it up as common sense is stupidity.

This discussion is not made in the absence of the divinity aspect of things. Sure, if you are a non-believer you can try and make an argument saying that in the absence of God, there is no way this would be possible (you would be wrong then too, scientifically). But you would be an idiot to do such an argument on that premise because we are discussing an event that is religious and catalogued as religious.

 

[afr0byte]

You're posting an alternate slanderous story for which you would be liable in a court of law. But Mary was a good woman, and a good mother, unlike... ah well, lets leave it at that. So she would possibly forgive you for your ignorance and your hate of her for no good reason.

But I digress. You have been beating the same drum since we started this dance. You really have nothing to bring to the table except slander and speculation. That's it. I brought a can of whoop-ass, a court of law and the truth.

But I was told by the mods that I was a big bad bully for exposing your... poor debating skills, among other things which I am not convinced are true, so I shall stop making fun of you.

On a totally unrelated note,
My mother taught me to not hit animals or make fun of retarded people. This may or may not apply here but yeah, better take the safe route.

Nope. As others have said, you're wrong.

 

[afr0byte]

There is no data except the writings we have. Since this is the only data available to work with, you either believe it or not. If you don't, that's fine. If you do, that's fine. But making up arguments to support a statement without any evidence or proof is stupidity and dressing it up as common sense is stupidity.

This discussion is not made in the absence of the divinity aspect of things. Sure, if you are a non-believer you can try and make an argument saying that in the absence of God, there is no way this would be possible (you would be wrong then too, scientifically). But you would be an idiot to do such an argument on that premise because we are discussing an event that is religious and catalogued as religious.

You're hilarious, man. I very much doubt you'd believe your girlfriend/wife (if they happened to be virgins in the first place) if they came to you and told you that they were the next Mary, baring God's child.

 

[Oftencold]

I was thinking about this the other day:

So Yaweh is the God of the Jewish people. He is also the God of the Christian people. Yaweh explicitly told the Jewish people in the old testament NOT to worship any other Gods and to beware of false prophets. The Jews worshipped Yaweh and followed his orders - and still do. They killed Jesus for being a heretic, as they were instructed to do. Why didn't God foretell the coming of Jesus in the old testament? They didn't even get a heads ups warning signal like a message written in a cloud or some other supernatural phenomenon. What a helluva trap to lay for his people... eh? They killed Jesus for claiming to be the son of their God. They had no proof he was God's son, how could they have known?...

Now, according to Christians, if you don't accept Jesus as your lord and savior, it's into the lake of fire you go. So the Jews are now screwed for all eternity for staying true to their God's orders? What kind of crap is that? Talk about selling out your people.

See: Trinity

 

[Un biased]

Jesus was a Judean. There is no evidence of him being a jew. He didn't celebrate hannukah for instance... so he's not a jew. He's the first Christian... well, the founder of Christianity to be precise. Christ... Christianity. Get it?

The Romans weren't going against the Rabbi Order. They were working together to promote stability in the area. It was a tense relationship but that's how empires, and the romans, operate. You get local support from people you can work with and who are interested in a mutually beneficial agreement.


Crucifiction was a punishment reserved for anything the Romans wanted. It was a very popular penalty because it instilled terror and dred in the population and the people who they wanted to keep quiet. They punished thieves and bandits like this. They punished rapists like this. They punished traitors, deserters, slave uprisings, everything they could like this to discourage further behavior they wanted to discourage.

Jesus condemned the rabbi order and his death was instrumented by them and carried out by the Romans. I detailed everything in the previous post.

Judean is a part of the Jewish religion is it not Passover is a Jewish thing right .

 

[Un biased]

What does their mindset matter? Buddhists do not believe they are going to hell either, but according to Christians principles, they are.

So they aren't going to hell in their beliefs .

 

[Un biased]

That's not a very nice thing to say.

Maybe your mother cheated on your "father" with another man and hence before she got married and married your father just to cover it up, you don't know your real dad and your mother is skank.

Doesn't feel to nice to say that now does it? So why would you say such a thing about Jesus? What did the guy ever do to you?

Stop being like you are and be a better person, or else, that hypothesis, may actually increase the odds of being reality.

EDIT;




Another one to the mix.

1 my mother is a skank ( literally )

2 I need Maury now or maybe Jerry Sprigner .

 

[DDD]

There is no data except the writings we have. Since this is the only data available to work with, you either believe it or not. If you don't, that's fine. If you do, that's fine. But making up arguments to support a statement without any evidence or proof is stupidity and dressing it up as common sense is stupidity.

The proof that religious data is wrong (or the counter-proof) lies both with the medical community as well as with common sense. Take a woman, impregnate her either natural way or artificially, and see if she can give birth in the natural way and still remain a virgin. It is impossible unless she is artificially insaminated and the baby is delivered in a ceasarian way. These methods far out date the time when Mary was pregnant. These stuff are common sense.

This discussion is not made in the absence of the divinity aspect of things. Sure, if you are a non-believer you can try and make an argument saying that in the absence of God, there is no way this would be possible (you would be wrong then too, scientifically). But you would be an idiot to do such an argument on that premise because we are discussing an event that is religious and catalogued as religious.

I think the only idiot around here is you to claim that a woman can give birth and still remain a virgin. This is magical thinking Rainman. The heck is wrong with you today?!

 

[Rainman05]

You're hilarious, man. I very much doubt you'd believe your girlfriend/wife (if they happened to be virgins in the first place) if they came to you and told you that they were the next Mary, baring God's child.

Though i am divine in bed, I am not God by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Rainman05]

Judean is a part of the Jewish religion is it not Passover is a Jewish thing right .

Judean is a ethnic group... people living in Judeea. Jewish = being a part of a religion. At least that is what it meant until reformed judaism kicked in which calls jews both a race and a religious group.

 

[MaggieD]

I was thinking about this the other day:

So Yaweh is the God of the Jewish people. He is also the God of the Christian people. Yaweh explicitly told the Jewish people in the old testament NOT to worship any other Gods and to beware of false prophets. The Jews worshipped Yaweh and followed his orders - and still do. They killed Jesus for being a heretic, as they were instructed to do. Why didn't God foretell the coming of Jesus in the old testament? They didn't even get a heads ups warning signal like a message written in a cloud or some other supernatural phenomenon. What a helluva trap to lay for his people... eh? They killed Jesus for claiming to be the son of their God. They had no proof he was God's son, how could they have known?...

Now, according to Christians, if you don't accept Jesus as your lord and savior, it's into the lake of fire you go. So the Jews are now screwed for all eternity for staying true to their God's orders? What kind of crap is that? Talk about selling out your people.

The power of martyrdom infinity squared.

 

[Rainman05]

The proof that religious data is wrong (or the counter-proof) lies both with the medical community as well as with common sense. Take a woman, impregnate her either natural way or artificially, and see if she can give birth in the natural way and still remain a virgin. It is impossible unless she is artificially insaminated and the baby is delivered in a ceasarian way. These methods far out date the time when Mary was pregnant. These stuff are common sense.

I think the only idiot around here is you to claim that a woman can give birth and still remain a virgin. This is magical thinking Rainman. The heck is wrong with you today?!

I wasn't aware that giving birth unvirginizes the one that gives birth. I mean, I know life ****s us all, but still, not what I had in mind.

There is nothing with me today. You cannot look at the Bible with scientific glasses. It doesn't work that way. If you want to read the Bible, or any holy text, you need to do so by accepting the premises detailed in those scriptures. So you need to accept the idea of God being allpowerful. And if you accept God as being allpowerful, then you can't call a virgin birth impossible. It's that simple. And hence, if you wish to discredit the virgin birth you need to find evidence that shows that Mary wasn't a virgin. Which you can't because there is no such evidence because it isn't true. Mary was a virgin and God is allpowerful so he can do things that are scientifically inexplicable.

Now.

What happens if you decide to look at it outside of a religious perception? Well outside of a religious perception, you have no God. So the whole god damn book is null and void right there. There is no Judaism. No Christianity. No Islam. No abrahamic religion what so ever. It's all BS. And you can do the same with all other religions if you decide to look at the holy texts outside of a religious perception.

And if there are no gods, including no God, then Jesus wasn't both Man and God, he was just a Man, and it means that all the prophecies of the jewish faith were crap and it means that Christianity is crap and it means that what the OP was trying to discuss is crap. Because there are no Gods, no Messiahs, no nothing. And it's all a big pile of ****. And a virgin birth is the least of your worries at that point because the bigger worry is that 2.5bil people are mentally delusional and both religions are wrong.

Get it?

So you cannot discuss the Bible outside of a religious perception. You cannot discuss it from a purely scientific perception because doing so, means that you deny the existence of the supernatural. And God is supernatural, so you're denying God, and again, we get to what I was saying, the whole thing is null and void and not worth discussing.

 

[ecofarm]

Now, according to Christians, if you don't accept Jesus as your lord and savior, it's into the lake of fire you go. So the Jews are now screwed for all eternity for staying true to their God's orders? What kind of crap is that? Talk about selling out your people.

Just in case, as it appears, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, I'll point something out. You see, God had all kinds of requirements of the Jewish people (see especially, De and Le). According to Christians, the new Law is more simple: recognize that all of the Old Testament was pointing towards Jesus and accept him as a personal Savior promised by God to Abraham, David and others in the OT.

Failing to do this is like failing to abide by the ten commandments. So, if you can grasp it... it's just another rule, superseding all the others. From this perspective, I think you can understand that Jews did not "stay true to their God's orders" according to Christians.

Now, most Christians will pull the old "well, the Jews have their own, separate, covenant with God" but that's largely accepted as BS as per the "one covenant, two testaments" school of Christian understanding.

 

[afr0byte]

I wasn't aware that giving birth unvirginizes the one that gives birth. I mean, I know life ****s us all, but still, not what I had in mind.

There is nothing with me today. You cannot look at the Bible with scientific glasses. It doesn't work that way. If you want to read the Bible, or any holy text, you need to do so by accepting the premises detailed in those scriptures. So you need to accept the idea of God being allpowerful. And if you accept God as being allpowerful, then you can't call a virgin birth impossible. It's that simple. And hence, if you wish to discredit the virgin birth you need to find evidence that shows that Mary wasn't a virgin. Which you can't because there is no such evidence because it isn't true. Mary was a virgin and God is allpowerful so he can do things that are scientifically inexplicable.

Now.

What happens if you decide to look at it outside of a religious perception? Well outside of a religious perception, you have no God. So the whole god damn book is null and void right there. There is no Judaism. No Christianity. No Islam. No abrahamic religion what so ever. It's all BS. And you can do the same with all other religions if you decide to look at the holy texts outside of a religious perception.

And if there are no gods, including no God, then Jesus wasn't both Man and God, he was just a Man, and it means that all the prophecies of the jewish faith were crap and it means that Christianity is crap and it means that what the OP was trying to discuss is crap. Because there are no Gods, no Messiahs, no nothing. And it's all a big pile of ****. And a virgin birth is the least of your worries at that point because the bigger worry is that 2.5bil people are mentally delusional and both religions are wrong.

Get it?

So you cannot discuss the Bible outside of a religious perception. You cannot discuss it from a purely scientific perception because doing so, means that you deny the existence of the supernatural. And God is supernatural, so you're denying God, and again, we get to what I was saying, the whole thing is null and void and not worth discussing.

I guess I should write a holy book that says everything in the Bible is incorrect. You can't refute it after all, since you have to follow what my book says if you're going to talk about it (it being my book that I'll write).