Atheists Ruin Christmas in Santa Monica

Two accounts in the New Testament describe Jesus as born in Bethlehem. According to the Gospel of Luke,[19] Jesus' parents lived in Nazareth and travelled to Bethlehem for the census of AD 6, and Jesus was born there before the family returned to Nazareth. In the Gospel of Matthew version, it states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem but does not state where the family traveled from. It does, however reference the family leaving for Egypt to avoid persecution before returning to live in Nazareth: [23][24] Matthew reports that Herod the Great, told that a 'King of the Jews' has been born in Bethlehem, ordered the killing of all the children aged two and under in the town and surrounding areas. Jesus' father Joseph is warned of this in a dream, and the family escapes this fate by fleeing to Egypt and returning only after Herod has died. But being warned in another dream not to return to Judea, Joseph withdraws the family to Galilee, and goes to live in Nazareth.

Yes it does. why don't you believe that a spirit/angel could appear to her and give her a baby? It's energy that creates living things and god can make things appear instantly.

 

The Bible was written many years ago. What if new scientific methods reveal that something in the Bible was very wrong? The book would have to be edited to reflect this...

I didn't say it was all made up, but part of it is. The rest is stories...parables and the like. Jesus told a lot of those.

 

Looks like I will be breaking out my Bible to check this out myself...

 

In this 'what if' scenario that you propose,,, has such a scientific discovery been made that has direct relationship to the Bible and what is written in the Bible? If so, why have the scientific community NOT made a heyday proclamation that they can disprove a portion of the Bible,,, thus placing a shadow of incredulity upon the entire book?

 

As I said above, the story of Jesus dying and then coming to life is not only medically impossible, it is also illogical and never happened. No one dies and comes back to life. Ever.
Science hasn't proved it happened and they wonnt so that is prob not the best example, but I will get the Bible out tonight and see what I can find.

 

You say that restoration of life, after death is both "medically impossible" and also "illogical".

What definition of 'death' are you using?

 

I'm not sure if it can actually be called scientific, let alone discovery, that humans don't do virgin births, that global floods have not occurred while humans have been around and that we can't really live inside the stomachs of whales - just to name a few - but if so then there's no reason in the least to have any heyday over it.

 

Did I say anywhere, that the contents of those artifacts, were authenticated by the scientific community? No? I said the artifacts were authenticated by the scientific community and the contents were interpreted by a peer group. Hopefully you did not presume that the peer group were scientists, as we all know that scientists don't involve themselves in all that God stuff found in the Bible. Did they have scientists at the time that the Bible was compiled? Were they all knowledgeable of the language that the artifacts were written in?

C'mon Freeware: I am certain (almost) that you can do better than that.

 

An artefact in archaeology is an object made by a human. Virgin births, Noachian floods, and living inside whales aren't artefacts.

 

How right you are. However, the scrolls, tablets, and such on which those were written are ARTIFACTS. They were made by humans (under the direction of a separate being).

 

Proof? For any of that statement of faith.

Many holy books have been written, supposedly guided by the hand of a deity.

Are those books and scrolls also proof that a deity exist. If so Islam is just as valid as any form of christianity. So is Judaism. So is Mormonism.

 

What part of my comment are you specifically referring to as a "statement of faith."?

And your point?

Did I say that they were PROOF that a deity exists? NO? However, there is a non-theist on this forum that has declared that she uses the Bible as a PROOF of her claims. So, if she uses it as a PROOF of her claims, then it can also be used as a PROOF of the claims of Theists.... which would logically include the PROOF of the existence of God. Now if you have a problem withe the concept of equality, then perhaps you should launch an attack against that non-theist who made such admission. See the thread (now closed) entitled "Proselytizing" .. probably can be found on page 3 of the index of threads. The thread was closed due to length about 5 postings after her admission.

 

The medium is the artefact. The message is not, it is illusion.

 

That's a fairly ridiculous assumption.

Then I can use Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" as proof of the existence of Wonderland.

See how that works?

 

That use of Lewis Carrols works is entirely your prerogative. Have fun with it.

 

And the object we were speaking about is the artifact... not the content.