Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-06-2013, 02:20 PM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(11-06-2013 01:54 PM)Stephen Charchuk Wrote:  
(11-06-2013 01:49 PM)morondog Wrote:  ]

FrankenJesus ?


No, sweet Zombie Jesus..... Angry

Jesus the Christ of Nazareth is a composite figure. His is based off of not less the 7 mythical and historical people and possibly more. When you break down the early God making process the buffet style creation is very apparent and shows that even the earliest "true christians" were cafeteria catholics picking and choosing from the God traits they liked and leave out the ones they didn't.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
11-06-2013, 03:55 PM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
We tend to ciritize the old more than the new because if we dismantle the old, the new falls apart with it. Most christians tend to think otherwise, but the New Testament is reliant on the Old Testament. If it were to fall, the New would fall with it.

It's a more effective strategy than taking out only the new testament, as that doesn't dismantle all of the abrahamic faiths have have a tendancy to be destructive to society.

It's not that hard to find flaws in the New Testament either, just look at the precieved character of Jesus and the Character of Jesus in the Bible. In some aspects, they are wildly opposed.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
11-06-2013, 04:36 PM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
"So if you were to critic the NT, how would you "burn" it "

OK ..... you asked .....

NATIVITY

Many consider the two versions of the nativity to be no more than the same story viewed from two different perspectives.
But even the most cursory reading cannot fail to reveal two entirely different narratives ,and both completely fabricated.

Matthew.
Wise men and slaughtered innocents but no shepherds or angels. Holy family debunks in the middle of the night for Egypt.

Luke.
Angels , shepherds and a heavenly choir. But no wise men and no slaughter of the innocents.
Holy family follows the law and leaves for Jerusalem in order to present the child in the Temple.

Matthew.
Written for consumption by a fragmented , dispersed and demoralised Greek speaking , Jewish population (the source of nearly all early Christians). Hence the many (fabricated) references to Old Testament prophecy.

Luke.
Written for the poorer classes of Gentiles across the Empire , who were becoming the main focus of Evangelical recruitment under the Pauline “re-direction” of the early Church.


FORGED PROPHECIES

On eleven occasions , the scribe who composed what we now call the Gospel of Matthew , introduces the formula ".this happened in order to fulfil what was said by the prophet "
If we now examine some of these supposedly fulfilled prophesies we can see how just how fraudulent these passages are.

Virgin Birth.

“Matthew” maintains that 'Isaiah' had prophesied that Jesus would be born of a virgin:"Behold, a virgin will be with child, and will bring forth a son, and they will call his name Emmanuel," – Matthew 1.23.
Matthew's source is the Septuagint (Isaiah 7.14). But the Greek-speaking translators of this version of Hebrew scripture (prepared in 3rd century BC Alexandria) had slipped up and had translated 'almah' (young woman) into the Greek 'parthenos' (virgin).
Honestly translated, the verse reads:
'Behold, the young woman has conceived — and bears a son and calls his name Immanuel.'
The slip did not matter at the time, for in context, Isaiah’s prophecy (set in the 8th century BC but probably written in the 5th century BC) had been given as reassurance to King Ahaz of Judah that his royal line would survive, despite the ongoing siege of Jerusalem by the Syrians. And it did. In other words, the prophecy had nothing to do with events in Judaea eight hundred years into the future!
Yet upon this doctored verse from Isaiah the deceitful scribe who wrote Matthew was to concoct the infamous prophecy that somehow the ancient Jewish text had presaged the miraculous birth of Jesus.

Born in Bethlehem.

The 8th century BC Jewish sage 'Micah' writes about Assyrian invaders and a series of skirmishes in Samaria. He predicts (quite incorrectly as it turns out) that a ruler will arise from David's Bethlehem and conquer Assyria.

What does Micah actually say? The Massoretic (Hebrew) text of Micah 5.2, translated, says:
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah who is little among the clans of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be a ruler in Israel."

'Bethlehem Ephrathah' here refers to the clan who are descendants from a man called Bethlehem, the son of Caleb's second wife Ephrathah referred to in 1 Chronicles – it does not refer to a town at all!

Undeterred, Matthew subtly alters the quoted text in his own story (2.6):
"And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means the most insignificant of Judah, for out of you will come forth a ruler in Israel."

What Matthew has done is change the reference to a clan to a reference to a city – but who would notice!


Lives in Nazareth.

The writer of Matthew started the deceit that the title 'Jesus the Nazarene' should in some manner relate to Nazareth, by quoting 'prophecy':
"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." – Matthew 2.23.

With this, Matthew closes his fable of Jesus's early years. Yet Matthew is misquoting– he would surely know that nowhere in Jewish prophetic literature is there any reference to a Nazarene.
What is 'foretold' (or at least mentioned several times) in Old Testament scripture is the appearance of a Nazarite.
For example:
"For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines." – Judges 13.5.

Matthew slyly substitutes one word for another. By replacing Nazarite ('he who vows to grow long hair and serve god') with a term (Nazarene) which appears to imply 'resident of' he is able to fabricate a hometown link for Jesus.



There is of course much more ,but I'll leave it there for now ...

(with thanks for some of the above ...link : http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/)

Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.


"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like The Watchman's post
11-06-2013, 04:58 PM (This post was last modified: 11-06-2013 05:04 PM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(11-06-2013 03:55 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  We tend to ciritize the old more than the new because if we dismantle the old, the new falls apart with it. Most christians tend to think otherwise, but the New Testament is reliant on the Old Testament. If it were to fall, the New would fall with it.

It's a more effective strategy than taking out only the new testament, as that doesn't dismantle all of the abrahamic faiths have have a tendancy to be destructive to society.

It's not that hard to find flaws in the New Testament either, just look at the precieved character of Jesus and the Character of Jesus in the Bible. In some aspects, they are wildly opposed.

Damn...I just logged back on to essentially say just that. But to reiterate, if the Old Testement does not stand then what is to use of the New Testement? If Jesus was never claimed to be the god of the Old Testement, and had nothing to say about the Old Testement or the Old Testement's god, and it appeared to be a completely unrelated document than maybe you could take away the "old", and keep the "new", and Jesus along with it.

But that is not the case. We are to believe that the Jesus IS the god of the Old Testement. So even if a Christian makes the dubious claim that, "that was the "old" God, but now God is nicer. Say what you want about God back when he was all grumpy and had a stick stuck up his ass, but he's had a mood change now (which he has not) so Judge him by who he is now, not back when he raped and murdered all those people."

"God" is eternal and unchanging (so we are intended to believe) so when we judge the Old Testement god we are in fact judging the exact same god with the exact same scrutiny in the New Testement (technically).

Think of it this way...it's no different from Judging "God" in the Old Testement as the same god in the New Testement, than it would be to judge the god of Genisis, as the god of Exodus, or the god of Deuteronomy, or of Leviticus. And it wouldn't make any sense to Judge the god of Mathew differently than the god of Mark, or of Revalations. That would be a bit like saying, well "you atheist can criticize the Jesus of the gospel of Paul, but can't criticize the Jesus of the gospel of Luke".

No, that wouldn't make sense even by a Christian's standards. But if Christians want Jesus to be not only God, but also the same God in the old testement, than you as a Christian have to take on the responsiblity of what that means. Criticizing and confronting the truth of the Old Testement God is exactly confronting and criticizing the New Testement God. And all the same can be said for the Old verse New testement as a whole.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Raptor Jesus's post
11-06-2013, 05:22 PM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(11-06-2013 04:58 PM)Cloud Strife Wrote:  ..."God" is eternal and unchanging (so we are intended to believe) so when we judge the Old Testement god we are in fact judging the exact same god with the exact same scrutiny in the New Testement (technically)....

By the way, the reason I wrote (technically) there is because I can in fact compair them differently from book to book, and offten even with in the same book, as it is all made up as they went. Different authors made up, or translated, or copied down what was made up to them, who God was and what he did. So the Gods of the various books are actually different Gods, claimed to be the same God.

Kind of like how the portrals of Batman by writters of the batmans of actors Adam West, Michael Keaton, Christian Bale, Val Kilmer, George Clooney, and Kevin Conroy (extra points if you regonize that last one) are all Batman, but not all the same Batman. We can criticize one verse the other as they are written to be portrayed because we know they are not actually literally the exact same Batman. But with God/Jesus in the bible as Christians believe are in fact exactly literally all the same from book to book, then one attack is equal to all. However we atheist are fortunate, because though we will happily take on “God” as a whole, we are able to take on individual aspects of individual books, because we know they are different “characters” like Batman, intended to be believed as the same one.

You (Christians) don’t get to make the argument that attacking the Old Testament has nothing to do with the new one because you are supposed to believe that it does. And I guess I greater question than the question posed in this thread is, “Why do Christians think the Old Testament doesn’t Matter”? Rhetorical, by the way, I’ve already heard what they’ve had to say to respond to that…and they are wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 05:22 PM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(11-06-2013 04:58 PM)Cloud Strife Wrote:  
(11-06-2013 03:55 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  We tend to ciritize the old more than the new because if we dismantle the old, the new falls apart with it. Most christians tend to think otherwise, but the New Testament is reliant on the Old Testament. If it were to fall, the New would fall with it.

It's a more effective strategy than taking out only the new testament, as that doesn't dismantle all of the abrahamic faiths have have a tendancy to be destructive to society.

It's not that hard to find flaws in the New Testament either, just look at the precieved character of Jesus and the Character of Jesus in the Bible. In some aspects, they are wildly opposed.

Damn...I just logged back on to essentially say just that. But to reiterate, if the Old Testement does not stand then what is to use of the New Testement? If Jesus was never claimed to be the god of the Old Testement, and had nothing to say about the Old Testement or the Old Testement's god, and it appeared to be a completely unrelated document than maybe you could take away the "old", and keep the "new", and Jesus along with it.

But that is not the case. We are to believe that the Jesus IS the god of the Old Testement. So even if a Christian makes the dubious claim that, "that was the "old" God, but now God is nicer. Say what you want about God back when he was all grumpy and had a stick stuck up his ass, but he's had a mood change now (which he has not) so Judge him by who he is now, not back when he raped and murdered all those people."

"God" is eternal and unchanging (so we are intended to believe) so when we judge the Old Testement god we are in fact judging the exact same god with the exact same scrutiny in the New Testement (technically).

Think of it this way...it's no different from Judging "God" in the Old Testement as the same god in the New Testement, than it would be to judge the god of Genisis, as the god of Exodus, or the god of Deuteronomy, or of Leviticus. And it wouldn't make any sense to Judge the god of Mathew differently than the god of Mark, or of Revalations. That would be a bit like saying, well "you atheist can criticize the Jesus of the gospel of Paul, but can't criticize the Jesus of the gospel of Luke".

No, that wouldn't make sense even by a Christian's standards. But if Christians want Jesus to be not only God, but also the same God in the old testement, than you as a Christian have to take on the responsiblity of what that means. Criticizing and confronting the truth of the Old Testement God is exactly confronting and criticizing the New Testement God. And all the same can be said for the Old verse New testement as a whole.

Consistency has never been the strong point of this Religion. They can't even agree amongst themselves as to what the core beliefs are let alone what all the tenants mean. As I mentioned above the choose your own religious adventure story is at the root of this truly bizarre cult. Once you remove the Jesus glasses you realise that the entire narrative from the OT to the NT is so garbled and nonsensical and so self contradicting that as a critic all you have to do is literally just quote the book itself to show it is in error. On top of that once you add the actual history of the formation of the cannon (both OT and NT) you can see that the Hand of Man is all there is.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
11-06-2013, 09:16 PM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
The New Testament is practically a self-aware fraud. Christ rides into town on a donkey "so that prophesy may be fulfilled"? Really? There are all kinds of prophecies claimed to be fulfilled, but not actually prophesied in the old testament. This link has a tonne of examples:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/f...phecy.html

Frankly, if you actually read the Bible--really read it--the New Testament seems about as plausible as a more modern day fraud, the book of Mormon. The Old Testament is such an easy target to pick about because it is so morally reprehensible, but the New Testament is just patently a fraud.

But speaking of morality, what's so fricken moral about scape goating and human sacrifice? That is the one sentence abridged version of the New Testament. I for one hope that humanity has long moved past human sacrifice, and I hope mankind rejects the notion of using a scape goat to cast off sins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 10:32 PM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(11-06-2013 09:16 PM)BryanS Wrote:  The New Testament is practically a self-aware fraud. Christ rides into town on a donkey "so that prophesy may be fulfilled"? Really? There are all kinds of prophecies claimed to be fulfilled, but not actually prophesied in the old testament. This link has a tonne of examples:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/f...phecy.html

Good read. Thx for the link. I'm pretty sure I'll be citing it in the future myself.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 12:37 AM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
There's a new book either out, or coming out, by John Shelby Spong about the compilation of the Gospel of John. He's not exactly an academic, but I like his books, and it looks like he worked on this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shelb...ref=topbar

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
12-06-2013, 06:27 AM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
As to how Mormonism was madeup I still can't believe that they still believed "John Smith" even after they had proven he was a fraud. For Christians these ones are epically gulible. It should be called Moronism instead.

Sent From My NEO x5....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: