POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : First "Christmas Star" in Nearly 800 Years : Re: First "Christmas Star" in Nearly 800 Years Server Time
25 Apr 2024 04:35:03 EDT (-0400)
  Re: First "Christmas Star" in Nearly 800 Years  
From: Patrick Elliott
Date: 21 Dec 2020 06:57:32
Message: <5fe08dac$1@news.povray.org>
On 12/19/2020 12:58 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> knew Jesus was born of a virgin until nearly a half century after he 

> written ca. 80 CE, and the author based his claim on a "prophecy" that 

> virgin birth story, but it is clear from his genealogy in chapter 3 than 
> the mythology was as yet incomplete and was still being worked out. (The 
> author of Matthew never noticed that his genealogy totally subverted the 
> virgin birth idea.)
> 
Not going to address all of this, but this one is pretty much an 
absolute "invention". The world specifically used in the original texts 
- before it became "translated" into Roman, specifically referred to 
"maiden", as in "young girl/woman". The language actually has a word for 
virgin in it, which was not used at all. There are all sorts of 
arguments, back and forth, over whether or not this was somehow an 
accident, and they did mean virgin, but.. this just seems like its own 
sort of special pleading to me - "It has to be an accident, because we 
know they had to mean virgin!"

Don't even get me started on the "existence" of Jesus, as described in 
the Bible, or the fact that only two accounts of the resurrection can 
even be called "common to the time it happened, sort of..", one of them 
almost copies the other verbatim, except for adding supernatural stuff 
to it, while the "first" account included none of the elements that made 
it a supernatural event, or implied in any way he had reappeared.

The whole book is a mess, honestly, but the New Testament not only 
mangles its own content, it warps and twists the OT, making claims about 
fulfillment of prophecies that where already fulfilled in the original 
passages, and didn't refer to the times of Jesus at all, etc. The only 
thing more mad is the attempts to explain away all of it, by doing 
things like copying lines out of the King of Tyr, to "invent" the Devil 
(which is not the same as Satan at all, even if they, again, insisted on 
conflating their new invented enemy with that prior character.

The only thing, honestly, sillier is the mess of gibberish added, again, 
when the Quran was written, and, once again, half the contents where 
"rewritten" to create even more confusion, nonsense, cosmology and 
gibberish to explain things than this video contains. (It includes, for 
example, Allah arguing with the Earth over whether or not it would do as 
he commanded and actually come into existence... lol)

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.