How can Christians be so ignorant as to actually believe that their Christian religion is actually a fulfillment of...

>a man-made system that underwent change to adapt to the needs of people
>hence, it has no real authority nor place in the modern world
>it's manmade therefore it has no place in the modern world

Mustn't we throw out science and all other philosophies if that was the case? Saying a religion isn't divinely inspired doesn't make it any less of a beneficent, useful mechanism for social order, meaning and value in the lives of everyday people.

I don't know what's dumber: falling for an obvious bait thread, or falling for religion.

>those two facts

They are not facts, they are myths.

All the prophecies about coming messiahs that are about Jesus aren't about coming messiahs that are Jesus.

Even if they were all accounts of their fulfillment were written several decades after the fact by non-eyewitness with no stated sources, an agenda and full access to those prophecies which were likely beneficially mistranslated.

They really aren't.
Isaiah 53 refers to a past event and is thought to refer to Israel.
Psalms 22 as far as I know doesn't refer to a crucifixion but rather to a mauling by a lion.

>House of David.
By Joseph's lineage. I don't think that works for virgin births. Also differing geneologies.
>Virgin birth
May or may not be a mistranslation that was carried over.

>Calculated those odds
Only account is the bible which was written decades after the fact, by non-eyewitness with an agenda and full access to those prophecies for most of those books.

The odds that Jesus fulfilled them at random are astronomical.

Jesus did not fulfill them at random.

lrn2read?

>Mustn't we throw out science and all other philosophies if that was the case

No, because science and philosophy are useful, whereas religion usually does not make sense and seems rather regressive, with the only reason believers tolerate this being that it comes from a deity. Take away the possibility of the existence of this deity, and you merely have an old, regressive, outdated canon that people have demonstrated time and time again in the West that they do not want to be subservient to.

I think what he's getting at is that it lacks "real" authority or place, as in there's nothing inherent to it. So it must stand on its own merits as an ideology, as it's not divinely inspired.

Facts, actually, and ones that your disbelief does not effect.

They all were about Jesus; if a man believed Moses and the prophets, they believed Jesus. The opposite is also true. If a man does not believe in Jesus, neither does he believe in Moses and the prophets.

The fact that things were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, Who brings all things to the remembrance of the authors, and Who's collaboration makes the scriptures holy, negates your entire idiotic argument that history is written after the events take place.

In fact, proof that the bible is of God is that it writes history centuries before it takes place.

They really are. Isaiah 53 is about Jesus, not Israel. Psalms 22 is about a crucifixion, and prophecies exactly what Jesus said on the cross.

Jesus goes back to David via both Mary and Joseph, and as He is not blood related to Joseph, He skips the curse on the line of Jeconiah.

A sign to the world is a virgin giving birth to a boy.

Something quite commonplace is a young woman giving birth to a boy.

The agenda was to wake you up so that you don't go to hell.

That's the agenda.

Wake up.

0/10

Back in my day, trolling meant something.

I'll let you know the day I become as you are.

Not today.

Tomorrow's not looking likely either.

My argument is that it's written after the events took place but since it isn't an eyewitness account and doesn't provide a source there's no reason to believe it even with perfect remembrance.

>Writes history
>Vague prophecy that can be interpreted anyway you want to

If Isaiah 53 was about Jesus then it wouldn't be in the past tense or would be more accurate. Jesus is not silent when faced with his accusers. He's not despised or disfigured.

Psalms 22 is not about a crucifixion and isn't a messianic prophecy either. It also doesn't predict what Jesus said on the cross according to Luke or John. Don't pull numerology bullshit or claim that they each only got parts of the statement.

There's no way that one can infer that the genealogies use Mary's genealogy though and it only works if one assumes the Gospels complete eachother for some absurd reason as Matthew's Gospel would not fulfill the prophecy even avoiding the Jeconiah blood curse in so doing.

Matthew
John Mark
Peter
John
Paul
James
Jude

All eyewitnesses.

You don't have an argument; you have willful denial. Jesus did not offer up any defense in the face of the charges against Him. Prophecy is as good as history in God's eyes; that it can be written in past tense, or in future perfect tense, is known. Jesus literally says what the psalmist writes, a thousand years prior. That not all four gospel writers wrote all seven things Jesus said on the cross was done for reasons. Not for you saying it didn't happen.

It's very easy in the Greek. Women's genealogies read like the Mary came from the Heli, who came from the Jacob, etc. There's a definite article involved so you know it's a woman's genealogy.

Wake up. You're running out of time.

What are you?

If Matthew were an eyewitness he wouldn't take heavily from Mark.
Mark isn't an eyewitness because the account doesn't suit who should be writing it look it up yourself.
Peter's writings are contested or denied for various reasons likely illiterate fisherman and dating issues being among them.
John has issues that should not be the case with "Perfect Recall" and was written around 95 AD. Also apparently written by multiple people.
Paul never claims to be an eyewitness aside from receiving visions.
James doesn't really say anything about Jesus in his epistle.
Jude as far as I can tell from the writings isn't an apostle since he sets himself apart from them.

>Jesus did not offer up any defense
That's not really the claim. He's supposed to have remained silent according to the prophecy yet is convicted on his own testimony (against sanhedrin law anyway but you'd believe that the jews certainly would bend over backwards to kill their messiah)

>Past is fine too
It speaks against this fulfillment and more for a different interpretation though.

>Jesus literally says what X writes
It's not a messianic prophecy though, it's just a dude getting mauled by lions. Jesus or the writer could just be quoting that psalm verbatim. Name those reasons that they didn't all write it. Don't resort to numerology and muh magic 7.

Source me this claim that this signifies a women's genealogy.

I swear if he says "Spiritually alive Christian" I will know that this board has a very small quantity of actual Christposters.

Virgin birth is a complete and utter meme not required of the moshiach Ben david

I am a born again Christian.

Another Bart Ehrman victim.

Look, Mark is John Mark, and the account he wrote came from Peter. An eyewitness.
Matthew and Mark are writing about the same experiences Matthew and Peter had as Jesus' disciples. Ditch this retarded plagiarism bullshit, and while you're at it, ditch the Q hypothesis.

Peter's writings are contested by atheists and fools, and who listens to atheists and fools about the things of God?

John did not write sequentially, nor did he claim to write sequentially. Nor in any of his writings did he claim to do anything other than what he did. If you want chronological, go to Luke.

Paul absolutely claimed to be an eyewitness.

Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul spent three years in Arabia, likely on Mt. Sinai, talking to Jesus. Hence Paul knowing more about Jesus and the New Covenant than all of the other apostles combined.

James and Jude were brothers of Jesus, and were eyewitnesses to pretty much His entire life.

The claim is He would not speak in His defense, and He did not.

Yes, the Sanhedrin broke dozens of their laws in order to "justify" killing their messiah.

It really doesn't. God can tell you the future just as certainly as He can tell you the past. And does. Especially with Cyrus.

There's nothing about lions; the bulls of Bashon are the Roman guards from the region of Samaria posted in Jerusalem.

I am poured out like water,
And all My bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax;
It has melted within Me.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
And My tongue clings to My jaws;
You have brought Me to the dust of death.
For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;
I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.
They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.

>Paul spent three years in Arabia, likely on Mt. Sinai, talking to Jesus. Hence Paul knowing more about Jesus and the New Covenant than all of the other apostles combined.
wut.

Seed of a woman.
From your seed, Eve.
Behold a virgin shall conceive.
How shall I bear a son, as I am a virgin?

Galatians 1 (YLT)
and when God was well pleased -- having separated me from the womb of my mother, and having called [me] through His grace --
to reveal His Son in me, that I might proclaim him good news among the nations, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood,
nor did I go up to Jerusalem unto those who were apostles before me, but I went away to Arabia, and again returned to Damascus,
then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to enquire about Peter, and remained with him fifteen days, and other of the apostles I did not see, except James, the brother of the Lord.

>Ditch things with decent evidence because muh Jesus

>Ad hominem will surely vindicate muh Peter

John has anachronisms.

Paul had visions. He never met Jesus.

James and Jude depends on entirely on how you interpret "Brother" in the respective contexts and Jude is double that since he claims to be a brother to James who is claimed by Paul and Josephus to be called a brother to Christ. And Jesus basically disowned his family anyway. And neither of their writings really get into Jesus.

>Would not speak in his defense
Not what the prophecy says
"He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth".

And yet no note is made of these broken laws etc.

>Muh prophecies can be anything

Pierced in Psalm 22 is a translation issue and reads as "Like a lion" depending on the source used for translation. The christian interpretation being derived from the septuagint as opposed to the Masoretic text.

Did anyone mention that Paul was indeed named Shaul and was a jew before "converting" to christianity?

>Paul

Oh boy

>Another Bart Ehrman victim.

Bart Ehrman is largely considered respectable in academia and his conclusions widely accepted. Got some actual academia to refute them?

Ignore the Christcuck, they'll believe anything.

>Christianity a farce

>All of the prophecies about the coming messiah are about Jesus.

How are you supposed to have a reasonable discussion with anybody that believe in shit like "prophecy"?

You can't.

That's why you're never going to be able to reason with the majority of religious people, because their belief proves that they are unreasonable.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all Jew religions, and they're all a farce.

This, so much.

The fuckers are actually proud to state that they believe in "prophecy", too, which just goes to show how fucking stupid we really are, as a species.

I really hate this reasoning. Christianity is very obviously Hellenized, and Islam is very obviously Arabic in character. They're all quite different theologically.

Both Christianity and Islam came from the Jew religion, as they all basically recognize the same stupid shit from the Jew torah/old testament, hence, they're all Jew religions, and they should all be purged.

Christfags forcing the NT is exactly the same as the cringeworthy autistic fucks who insist on forcing their fanfictions and OCs.

>>/pol/

>>/facts/

...

t. Angry Jew

...

How can you discuss anything with people who don't accept facts unless those facts don't hurt their feelings?

The odds that later Christians scoured the Old Testament and Psalms looking for anything that could be manipulated to vaguely mention Jesus is much more reasonable.

The Jews didn't kill Jesus: in all probability, they clamored for his release.

See, for example, the story of the crowd choosing Barabbas. Barabbas is not - and never has been - a proper Hebrew name: it simply means 'son of the father', bar-Abbas. Furthermore, in some gospels, Jesus is referred to as Yeshua bar-Abbas (Jesus son of the father).

Thus, when the crowd supposedly clamored for Barabbas, they were clamoring for Jesus, as it is quite likely Barabbas was his epiphet.

This idea of Barabbas being a different character from Jesus who was a murdered was likely born from a mistranslation on part of the Greek scribe(s) who transcribed the story: over time, the story grew to accomodate Hellenes and Latins while demonizing the Jews (who never converted to Christianity due to their recognition that Christianity was unable to grasp basic Jewish tenets and as such, was not a continuation of their religion).

They did, and they found hundreds of them.

Written centuries before Jesus' birth.

You're an idiot.

Matthew 27
Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished. 16 And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas.[c] 17 Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” 18 For he knew that they had handed Him over because of envy.

Holy fuck.

CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A CONTINUATION OF JUDAISM.

But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?”

They said, “Barabbas!”

22 Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?”

They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!”

Is it fucking obvious yet?

>believing a heavily edited and interpolated source whose clear aim is to force unquestionable faith and prevent criticism or examination

Idiot born of idiots.

I never said Christianity was a continuation of Judaism, and I agree in that both are not 'real'. I was simply arguing from a literary standpoint that shows inconsistencies within the Christian canon.

Exactly. That's why it's futile to discuss religion with those that have been indoctrinated into it, as they don't have the ability to distinguish between fact and fiction.

>the New Testament is a Greek fanfiction to the Old Testament
Yeah, so? Neo-platonism is based.

You can't even be consistent within one day.

The bible has been consistent for 3500 years.

You are pathetic.

And here you are, thinking that "God did it" is circular reasoning.

I hate to hurt your feelings, but it's quite linear.

Do you see how idiotic and childish you are?

>two atheism threads on the front page

Where is Constantine when you need her?

>"The bible has been consistent for 3500 years."
>mfw people actually think this

Atheism to Orthodox is a lateral move at best, and might actually make the atheist twice as hard to save.

That whole "join my church! We're the only ones going to heaven!" is apparently pretty persuasive to people who have absolutely no understanding of the bible whatsoever. Or history. Or common sense.

Of being an ineffectual pedant that couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag?

Go ahead and show me an example where it hasn't been consistent, numbnuts.

They dug up a 2000 year old scroll of Isaiah at Qumran and it was 99.8% identical to what we have today.

99.8% identical, over 2000 years, and the differences were spelling variants, idioms and copyist errors, having nothing to do with doctrine whatsoever.

Show me ANY secular manuscript from 2000 years ago with tens of thousands of extant manuscripts that are 99.8% perfectly transmitted other than the bible.

Protip: kill yourself.

I thought that if you learn about history and anthropology you are supposed to be more empathic and less superstitious.

>kill yourself

Very Christian of you.

>Go ahead and show me an example where it hasn't been consistent, numbnuts.

There's a thread about this every single day, and it gets pretty tiring having to type out the same thing all those times just because little Christcuck can't get it into his head that his fairy-tales aren't real.

>having nothing to do with doctrine whatsoever.

The only correct line in your dumb post

Non Christian here, I'd be happy to see some.

The "bible" is just slapped together greek texts, the two testament aren't even the same god, some fanfiction author inserted his mary sue character in there (literally the "son" of the main character).

>The New Testament's theology is completely different from the Old Testament of the Hebrews. By reading the NT, one sees the introduction of certain themes that simply aren't found in Judaism, but that are very obviously influenced from Greek mystery rites. The entire concept of a suffering deity, of a deity whose suffering and death 'redeems' the world; the idea of followers mystically sharing in this deity's suffering,
Christ is seen as the personification of Israel in Christianity. A lot OT prophecies which pertain to Christ are about Israel as personified.

>of reaching a pleasant/'good' afterlife by performing proper rites and/or subscribing to a certain deity
The afterlife is explicitly present in the prophets of the OT

> The Orphic rites, the Eleusinian rites, the Attic rites, the cults of Serapis and Dyonisus and Isis.
We hardly know anything at all about these rites. Historians piece together what they might have been by using--wait for it--Christianity as a reference.

>Does Yahweh the war god ever give the impression of being a 'suffering deity'?
YHWH is also the creator God, he's a lot of things. He says in the OT it does not make him happy when the evil die (Ezekiel 33:11)

>Isn't it odd that the New Testament places undue emphasis on an afterlife, yet the Old Testament made no mention of it
The Torah also barely touches on the theology of angels or things like that, the prophets contain most of the elaboration about the workings of heaven and earth and hell (Gehenna), it's no wonder they discuss the afterlife; the afterlife is a product of the NEW covenant, which is first elaborated upon by the prophets; there is no afterlife with the old covenant, except as a promise of the new.++++

Ecclesiastes 12:7, by the way, clearly indicates a spiritual nature of man that doesn't perish.

>not believing in bullshit Jew fairy tales invented thousands of years ago
>idiotic and childish

Choose one.

Why do people put so much time and energy into trying to disprove Christianity but rarely into other religions?

>A cosmic jewish zombie,who is also his own father can make you live forever if you eat his flesh an telepathicly tell him he is your master,so he can remove an evil curse he gave to humanity because a created rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magic tree

and Unicorns

You didn't answer my question though...

Christians believe that if you accept Christ as your savior then you will have eternal life, not sure what you're babbling for

It's a mainstream religion so people actually know about it and because it's western and been mostly dulled down there's less backlash for criticizing it either from SJWs or the religion's supporters themselves.
And because of it's nature it's the kind of religion that might actually get serious attempts to disprove it as opposed to just outright ridicule like mormonism, scientology and other assorted cults.
That doesn't mean there aren't elements that can be easily ridiculed, like creationism, but they aren't nearly as harmful to the religion's credibility.

That's my guess anyway.

because they live in an area where christianity is the relevant religion

next stupid question

Made some apostrophe errors here.
Ignore them.

People mock Christianity all around the world. I don't see Indians trying to disprove Hinduism even though that's their main religion and is also ludicrous

But you still didn't answer my question of why they do it

>I don't see Indians trying to disprove Hinduism

Do you read Hindi? Because there's plenty of them, they just don't bother writing in English since they're talking to other Indians.

>inb4
>"le worshiping a ded kike on a stick" meme
Yeah faggot go back to /pol/

Constantine a grill?

Misconception. The act of apostilization proves that on earth we are saved by man. And in the other regions of existence judged by a creator we call God according to our acts. God in the new testament made himself apparent in the facade of a man. If jews truly did believe God was omnipotent then they would believe Jesus was his son according to the miracles. But it proved something that Egyptians accused the Jews of, atheism. Thats all. For the most part the new testament was a legal book that spurred referendums as to the authenticity of some Jewish movements. The logic is. If im jewish and i believe in one God. Therefore i must believe in miracles exists because the existence of this being is a miracle. Now, if i dont believe in a miracle everyone saw and believe. And i express it. Yet when i gather around in my community and praise a miracle it is because the miracle was the byproduct of terrorist or some matter and what ive been doing is keeping everyone safe within the community.
Then there are the types that believe all the miracles are written in one book. They could have faith but lack the validity of a plausability in their current life.

It's the same slave morality though

Your post is pretty incoherent.
I can't discern the point you're making.

In particular this section:
>Now, if i dont believe in a miracle everyone saw and believe. And i express it.
>Yet when i gather around in my community and praise a miracle it is because the miracle was the byproduct of terrorist or some matter and what ive been doing is keeping everyone safe within the community.

It feels like maybe there's something missing?

If you try to do this in Iran they throw you in prison or off a roof.

Muslims are all over the world though

Dude, they're all bullshit.

That doesn't answer the question though

You seem upset.

Because it's the most familiar one in the English language.

The question is moot.

That's like asking "why do people try to disprove the tooth fairy, but not Santa Claus..."

What does that even mean? The bible is translated into English just like any other work

Another fundamental misunderstanding about what being a Christian is.

You'll learn, when you get cast into a lake of fire, that Jesus is no hippie, and neither are most of His followers.

They've all been debunked. You won't see them.

OT is mostly Hebrew, with a little Aramaic; NT is mostly Greek, a little Hebrew, and less Aramaic.

There is only one God.

There are, however, two covenants between man and God, the first being a spectacular failure, and the second being played out right before your very eyes.

Ecclesiastes.

Literally the one book that says "under the sun" 27 times, to emphasize that it is not talking about the afterlife.

That book, you use to demonstrate the afterlife.

You are truly retarded.