First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Applying Occam's razor to theory of Jesus birth.
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/21/13

Cardinalkirby wrote:


spacebat wrote:


Cardinalkirby wrote:


spacebat wrote:


Cardinalkirby wrote:

How about you try reading the good book. Mary was a virgin, God put himself in her womb. Since God was not a by product of you know what, then Jesus started out perfect and free from sin. This is different from the way men and women are normally born because a) Mary was still a virgin and b) because all men and women start out evil like their fathers since Adam and Eve.

Since every thing and the bible has never been proven to be incorrect (rather there is proof it's correct), and because the Gospels are cannon or in other words the accepted historical text, I don't see why there is a debate.

Let me just be clear, there is no artificial semen placed in Mary, and God did not have sex. Since God is a different kind of being it's best not to think about it in terms of things one knows, since there is no other example of an event like this through out history to compare it to.


And yet she was still inseminated with the seed of god...

not a virgin birth.

Do yourself a favor and read persons post before posting. I said there was no semen, which = virgin birth .


Sure there was. God semen... or whatever god calls it he inseminated Mary with. I think Christian's call it "the holy spirit".


You do realize that even if there was semen (which there wasn't) as long as Mary was intact then its a virgin birth. I'm sorry but that's just how it is. Technically no " you know what" = still a virgin birth.
There was no semen but I'd still be right if there were.
So people who are planted with another person seed is counted as a virgin birth? If so then we have a lot of Virgin births nowadays.

Giving birth to Jesus would have to brake the Intact in order to stretch for birth so = not a virgin birth.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/26/13
Occam's Razor states that plurality should not be multiplied, because this yields the simplest answer, which is not necessarily the correct answer.
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/26/13

longfenglim wrote:

Occam's Razor states that plurality should not be multiplied, because this yields the simplest answer, which is not necessarily the correct answer.


Grats... That just it I asked what is the most simple answer not what is the right answer because their is not enough evidence to know what is right or wrong, or if even Jesus was a real person. (or just some story based on other gods.)
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/26/13

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

Grats... That just it I asked what is the most simple answer not what is the right answer because their is not enough evidence to know what is right or wrong, or if even Jesus was a real person. (or just some story based on other gods.)


There are two parts to your response, the one of which is not entirely theological or even related to Christianity and Logic.

First, the question of what is right or wrong is a matter of Ethics, and the arguments for and against the objectivity of any Ethical system is the subject of Meta-Ethics and Metaphysics. We may discuss these at lenght, but they have very little relevence to the question of Logic or Theology.

Second, the question of the historicality of Jesus, I think, is beyond doubt, given the abundance of documents contempory to Jesus as well as other evidence. No historian would argue that Jesus was non-existant- no scholar, either of the Christian faith or otherwise, really do argue against it. This, I think, shows how Occam's Razor is applied. To establish that Jesus does not exist, one would have to explain how a collection of myths sprung up, in a relatively short time, around a 'non-existant' person named Jesus, how sources as diverse as Tacitus and Josephus, and, if these be the interlopitation of Christians, they do not more forcefully make these respective authors more Christians than they appear (tho' parts of said manuscript are so stylistically divergent that most scholars agree that small portions are the works of interlopers).
1037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / NC
Offline
Posted 4/28/13

It is said that immediately after the birth of Siddhartha Gautama, he stood up, took seven steps north, and uttered:

"I am chief of the world,
Eldest am I in the world,
Foremost am I in the world.
This is the last birth.
There is now no more coming to be."

Naturally, a new born child cannot immediately talk; the child requires further development in order to speak fluently. Furthermore, every place the baby Buddha placed his foot, a Lotus flower bloomed. Moreover, there is a claim that the Buddha was born of immaculate conception via a dream that his mother saw of a white elephant, whereas the dream is interpreted in the legend as a premonition of a blessing to come; therefore the incident would suggest a Divine birth as opposed to a human birth.


I noticed a while back that many famous religious figures have stories such as these, impossibles stories, describing their birth. Why is it that the birth of Jesus from a virgin is so widely accepted, and yet we describe the birth of the Buddha as ridiculous, impossible, completely unrealistic? Is it any more believable that a woman was approached by an angel and was impregnated by a mysterious man in the sky?

I believe that Jesus existed, but that his story was embellished and made more miraculous to support his supposed status as the son of God.
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/28/13

longfenglim wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

Grats... That just it I asked what is the most simple answer not what is the right answer because their is not enough evidence to know what is right or wrong, or if even Jesus was a real person. (or just some story based on other gods.)


There are two parts to your response, the one of which is not entirely theological or even related to Christianity and Logic.

First, the question of what is right or wrong is a matter of Ethics, and the arguments for and against the objectivity of any Ethical system is the subject of Meta-Ethics and Metaphysics. We may discuss these at lenght, but they have very little relevence to the question of Logic or Theology.

Second, the question of the historicality of Jesus, I think, is beyond doubt, given the abundance of documents contempory to Jesus as well as other evidence. No historian would argue that Jesus was non-existant- no scholar, either of the Christian faith or otherwise, really do argue against it. This, I think, shows how Occam's Razor is applied. To establish that Jesus does not exist, one would have to explain how a collection of myths sprung up, in a relatively short time, around a 'non-existant' person named Jesus, how sources as diverse as Tacitus and Josephus, and, if these be the interlopitation of Christians, they do not more forcefully make these respective authors more Christians than they appear (tho' parts of said manuscript are so stylistically divergent that most scholars agree that small portions are the works of interlopers).


would you like to produce me such evidence of this historical Jesus. Other than the bible I never did come by any evidence for a historical Jesus. And Thank.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/29/13 , edited 4/29/13

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

would you like to produce me such evidence of this historical Jesus. Other than the bible I never did come by any evidence for a historical Jesus. And Thank.


Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, 1

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure(1). He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles... And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; ...And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3

(1) Arabic quotation reads 'virtuous and worker of good' rather than 'wonderful' and 'teacher of men as receive truth with pleasure'.

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 Judæa, 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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind

Tacitus, Annals 55.44


If you never search, you will never find.

The library is a great place to look for these sort of things.
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/29/13
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD 60 years after his death supposable. It is not really qualified to be historically accurate or evidence.

also

scholars question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it. Richard Carrier argues that the words "the one called Christ" resulted from the accidental insertion of a marginal note added by some unknown reader. He proposes that the original text referred to a brother James of the high priest Jesus ben Damneus mentioned in the same narrative.
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 4/29/13 , edited 4/29/13
There is a great deal of anecdotal/testimonial evidence that a man existed that would later be referred to in religious context as Jesus the Christ... As for a man with the birth name Jesus Christ existing in antiquity... those are some parents with pretty scary expectations.

I can't believe you two are still beating this dead horse...
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/29/13 , edited 4/29/13

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD 60 years after his death supposable. It is not really qualified to be historically accurate or evidence.


Josephus was born around 30 years after the death of Jesus, and so, lived with people contemporous with Jesus. He was also a participant in the Jewish Revolt.


also

scholars question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it. Richard Carrier argues that the words "the one called Christ" resulted from the accidental insertion of a marginal note added by some unknown reader. He proposes that the original text referred to a brother James of the high priest Jesus ben Damneus mentioned in the same narrative.


The vast majority of scholars would like to disagree with Mr Carrier, as his speculation seems to rest simply on a priori prejudices. If it were an interpolation, as the words 'He is the Messiah' is in Testimonium Flavianum, the Christian instertion would not say 'Who was called Christ' but, rather, 'who is Christ'. In addition, what Carrier identifies as an accidental insertion by a reader (why would a reader insert something, unless you meant a scribe), can simply be a way of distinguishing Jesus ben Damneus of that passage with Jesus brother of James, who was called Christ by his follwers. His proposal is simply that, a proposal and a speculation, which the evidence are heavily against.
4169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/29/13
A lots they said about Jesus's birth and being poor doesn't add up. One of the things is they said Jesus's father "Joseph" was a poor carpenter, then only 5% of the population had learnt to read (literate) Jesus was among the 5%, so for most folks affording an education was impossible. How did Jesus's dad did it?
Posted 4/29/13
I believe there isn't enough information out there to Be true. If there is more Proof Ill believe.........
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/29/13 , edited 4/29/13

DeckardXLeah wrote:

A lots they said about Jesus's birth and being poor doesn't add up. One of the things is they said Jesus's father "Joseph" was a poor carpenter, then only 5% of the population had learnt to read (literate) Jesus was among the 5%, so for most folks affording an education was impossible. How did Jesus's dad did it?


Easy, Jesus wasn't a Carpenter, people just assumed that because he made a Carpenting Metaphor. We don't know what he did, or if he was poor or rich or middle class (for one, he is claimed to be part of the Davidic linage on both side of his family, or at least on Joseph's side, but one shouldn't put too much stock into this, at least half of Ireland can trace themselves back to Neill of the Nine Hostage or Brian Boru), or if he knew how to read (I do not recall any passage that specifically states that he is able to read), nor do we really have any reliable way to determine literacy within Roman Judea- one can argue that it must be high, given the emphasis Judaism, in its modern form at least, puts upon being able to read the Torah.
5143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M / Covina, California
Offline
Posted 5/4/13 , edited 5/4/13

Cardinalkirby wrote:

How about you try reading the good book. Mary was a virgin, God put himself in her womb. Since God was not a by product of you know what, then Jesus started out perfect and free from sin. This is different from the way men and women are normally born because a) Mary was still a virgin and b) because all men and women start out evil like their fathers since Adam and Eve.

Since every thing and the bible has never been proven to be incorrect (rather there is proof it's correct), and because the Gospels are cannon or in other words the accepted historical text, I don't see why there is a debate.

Let me just be clear, there is no artificial semen placed in Mary, and God did not have sex. Since God is a different kind of being it's best not to think about it in terms of things one knows, since there is no other example of an event like this through out history to compare it to.


I must correct you on something YOU said " Because all men & woman start out evil, like their fathers, since Adam & Eve.")

Adam & Eve Sinned when they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, thus all that would be born a
Genesis. 3: 17-19: And to Adam he said: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and took to eating from the tree concerning which I gave you this command,+ ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account.+ In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life.+ 18 And thorns and thistles it will grow for you,+ and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken.+ For dust you are and to dust you will return.

; Romans. 5:12 That is why, just as through one man+ sin entered into the world and death+ through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.

You, so called cardinal kirby are twisting what the Bible says, why not let the Scriptures speak for themselves how Jesus was born, since YOU obviously have NOT read it yourself.

Was Mary truly a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus?

Luke 1:26-31 (JB) reports that it was to “a virgin” whose name was Mary that the angel Gabriel carried the news: “You are to conceive and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus.” At this, Lu 1 verse 34 states, “Mary said to the angel, ‘But how can this come about, since I am a virgin [“I do not know man: i.e., as husband,” NAB footnote; “I am having no intercourse with a man,” NW]?’” (verse 35 adds: In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit+ will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy,+ God’s Son.+

Matthew 1:22-25 (JB) adds: “Now all this took place to fulfil the words spoken by the Lord through the prophet: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son and they will call him Immanuel, a name which means ‘God-is-with-us’. When Joseph woke up he did what the angel of the Lord had told him to do: he took his wife to his home and, though he had not had intercourse with her, she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.”

( Is this reasonable? Surely it was not impossible for the Creator, who designed the human reproductive organs, to bring about the fertilization of an egg cell in the womb of Mary by supernatural means. Marvelously, Jehovah transferred the life-force and the personality pattern of his firstborn heavenly Son to the womb of Mary. God’s own active force, his holy spirit, safeguarded the development of the child in Mary’s womb so that what was born was a perfect human.)—Luke 1:35; John 17:5.

Was Mary the Mother of God?

The angel who informed her of the coming miraculous birth did not say that her son would be God. He said: “You are to conceive and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. . . . The child will be holy and will be called Son of God.”—Luke 1:31-35, JB; italics added.

Heb. 2:14, 17, JB: “Since all the children share the same blood and flesh, he [Jesus] too shared equally in it . . . It was essential that he should in this way become completely like his brothers.” (But would he have been “completely like his brothers” if he had been a God-man?)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Mary is truly the mother of God if two conditions are fulfilled: that she is really the mother of Jesus and that Jesus is really God.” (1967, Vol. X, p. 21) The Bible says that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but was Jesus God? In the fourth century, long after the writing of the Bible was completed, the Church formulated its statement of the Trinity. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 295; see page 405, under the heading “Trinity.”) At that time in the Nicene Creed the Church spoke of Jesus Christ as “very God.” After that, at the Council of Ephesus in 431 C.E., Mary was proclaimed by the Church to be The·o·to′kos, meaning “God-bearer” or “Mother of God.”

However, neither that expression nor the idea is found in the text of any translation of the Bible.


Posted 5/6/13
Applying logic to something as idiotic as the Bible.


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.