'Jesus was born in June', astronomers claim, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 02:29 PM by AshleyD
reply to post by Article11



Sorry my matey. I don't feed trolls any longer. But I do wish you the best and hope you have an enjoyable experience under your new ATS account. It's understandable how starting out with a fresh posting slate can be refreshing.

As for your claim Jesus, more specifically the star, was based off of Caesar and his star, that's for another time. I just purchased two books dealing with those claims and will be dissecting them both in the research forum after the Holidays.

Cheers. Enjoy your ATS run for as long as it lasts.


reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 02:42 PM by AshleyD
reply to post by Article11



I'm sorry. What was your argument again? Oh yes, contradicting nativity accounts, copycat Messiah hypotheses, and sheer speculation.

You have to offer us some sort of challenge before we accept. Rehashing the same skeptic arguments that have been discussed and refuted on ATS a million and half times loses it's fun after a while.

Thanks for trying to pull me into the tired debate by appealing to my ego, though. That was a nice touch. Sneaky. But laziness and boredom often overshadows ego.

Enjoy.


reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 02:45 PM by Article11
Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to
post by Article11



I'm sorry. What was your argument again?


The New Testament.

Read it sometime.

You lose.


reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 02:48 PM by AshleyD
reply to post by Article11



Would you like to have a go with me, all formal and fancy like, in the debate forum? We can discuss it with facts, evidence, and sources. Three anonymous judges. It would be just the two of us with no interference from the peanut gallery. Lots of fun and you get the nifty little fighter title beneath your name. Interested? You'll argue pro for your position, I'll argue con.



reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 04:59 PM by Article11
Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to
post by Article11



Would you like to have a go with me, all formal and fancy like, in the debate forum?


I don't see why I have to buy you dinner to answer a simple question.

Matthew or Luke? Which version do you chose over the rest of the Bible?

I'll restate, since you no more read my post the first time than you apparently ever have the New Testament.

Originally posted by Article11
The nativity stories are bunk and contradict even themselves. Which was it? Did Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem for a Roman census or were they already residents of Bethlehem making the rest of the Gospels that refer to Jesus of Nazarene wrong? Only one version can be right? Matthew or Luke. One is a creative revisionist, or more likely both.

If Mary and Joseph really went for the Roman census then Herod had already been dead for decades since Rome didn't even occupy Judea prior, meaning Matthew completely made up the Massacre of the Innocents, which you also won't find in any actual historical accounts. That was Moses, not Jesus.

The fact is, the only canonized accounts of the nativity, not only contradict each other, but actual history, and were written IN RESPONSE to Emperor Augustus declaring HIMSELF the son of god as a result of seeing a comet in the night sky. The creators of the nativity stories also chose Bethlehem for their own night sky portend of Jesus' birth (which contradicts all historical accounts of the man from Nazarene ) in order to contrive it fit ancient Jewish prophecy.

Too bad it wasn't true, and Mathew and Luke didn't compare "divinely inspired" notes.


So glad you just bought books on Emperor Augustus as you said in a previous post. About time. You DO worship the son of god, right?



[edit on 19-12-2008 by Article11]


reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 05:38 PM by toasted
reply to post by Jinni




" The bible is not the word of God. It has gone though so many alterations and abuse over the centuries there are BOUND to be contradictions, mistakes etc. "


I must simply disagree.

If it is not The Word of God, it could not contain so many self defining words in it, not to mention hiding the gospel in the names of the first ten men of the Bible.

There were some mistakes, but with a companion Bible and a concordance almost anyone can get a deeper understanding of The Word and come to know that it is true.

video.google.com...

AGyztS7Cg&hl=en


The entire video is worthwhile.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



"God is an Imaginary Friend" Athiest Billboards in Denver-
  Posted 18 days ago with 31 member flags
Why are these 10 figures just like Jesus Christ??
  Posted 5 days ago with 14 member flags
I am an imposter in Church
  Posted 4 days ago with 11 member flags
What Kind of Christianity Is This?
  Posted 16 days ago with 7 member flags
The Great Flood Was Caused By A Comet?
  Posted 11 days ago with 7 member flags
Advert claiming cure through prayer is banned
  Posted 5 days ago with 7 member flags
The real Jewish people. Torah Jews Against ZIONISM
  Posted 13 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 16 hours ago, 113 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 12 hours ago, 98 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 10 hours ago, 63 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 6 hours ago, 58 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 14 hours ago, 50 replies