“The work of God”?

[I'm With Stupid]

Yes it is. It’s refuted it’s David, many Jewish people view it as Jewish people in general, and their suffering, rather than one man specifically.

It’s also in a section of the book that has prophecies.

Here is another quote from Psalms and is taken from Wikipedia:

Repeating something from an earlier book doesn't mean the earlier book is prophesizing it, it's means the later book has an interest in creating a link between the two.

But let's stick to the quote we were discussing, because there can be a tendency for people sometimes to respond to refutations with "what about this one?" So let's take your hypothesis on face value. Psalms 22 is a prophesy predicting not only Jesus' death, but also the manner of said death (piercing hands and feet). So with that in mind, what aspects of Jesus' execution do the following things from the passage predict?

- Strong bulls of Bashan
- roaring lions that tear their prey
- my heart has turned to wax and has melted inside me
- all my bones are out of joint
- dogs surround me
- they divide their clothes among me

The claim seems to rest on a very specific description of injuries. And yet if it was a prediction, and such a poetic and lengthy prediction at that, it would seem odd to miss out some of the more clearly iconic aspects of the crucifixion (why not mention the cross or the crown of thorns?) and instead refer to a number of things that weren't in Jesus' story, as well as clearly putting it in the context of a contemporary conflict with an adversary that appears throughout the bible.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Any group in those ancient times that wants to push a messsage will use old tales and prophecies as propaganda

Christianity in particular has always been very good at this, which is why they have integrated so many other traditions.

 

[stonerblue]

I now wonder where @Ban-jani stands on the flat earth debate..

 

[Ban-jani]

Repeating something from an earlier book doesn't mean the earlier book is prophesizing it, it's means the later book has an interest in creating a link between the two.

But let's stick to the quote we were discussing, because there can be a tendency for people sometimes to respond to refutations with "what about this one?" So let's take your hypothesis on face value. Psalms 22 is a prophesy predicting not only Jesus' death, but also the manner of said death (piercing hands and feet). So with that in mind, what aspects of Jesus' execution do the following things from the passage predict?

- Strong bulls of Bashan
- roaring lions that tear their prey
- my heart has turned to wax and has melted inside me
- all my bones are out of joint
- dogs surround me
- they divide their clothes among me

The claim seems to rest on a very specific description of injuries. And yet if it was a prediction, and such a poetic and lengthy prediction at that, it would seem odd to miss out some of the more clearly iconic aspects of the crucifixion (why not mention the cross or the crown of thorns?) and instead refer to a number of things that weren't in Jesus' story, as well as clearly putting it in the context of a contemporary conflict with an adversary that appears throughout the bible.

Dividing the clothes happened according to the Gospel, with the Romans dishing them out.

Bones out of joint could be referring to being crucified, surely?

Dogs surround me is pretty generic but it doesn’t not fit.

Heart turning to wax the same.

Not sure about the others.

I am not really sure why there is an argument to be had about what’s described in Psalms, it’s either the biggest coincidence of all time or it isn’t.

 

[Ban-jani]

I now wonder where @Ban-jani stands on the flat earth debate..

Comparing an Anglican Christian to a flat earther is a little stretch isn’t it?

I think atheism takes a lot of faith to believe this whole universe doesn’t have any intelligence behind it and that your whole reality is because of a bunch of chemicals in your brain.

 

[stonerblue]

The same book said the world and universe was created in days. It said the earth was created before light, the sun. It said the earth was flat. That Adam and Eve were real. That monsters lived. That unicorns lived. That there was a census that Joe and Mary Doll went to be part of, it didnt happen. That the jews wandered the desert for 40 years, they didn't. Israel tried to find archaeological evidence, found nothing.

So, because a book filled with bullshit and lies says something, does that mean it hapoebed, when all the above was also claimed to be true and held to be true until science showed it was the ramblings of Bronze Age men who knew no better. God would have known if he existed, he doesn't or he has dementia and can't remember what he did. There are also not one word in Roman historical records about a guy who could draw thousands and who was foretold to banish the Romans, not a word. Yet we know they ruthlessly waged war on any threat, but not Jesus. Was it the Life of Brian Roman soldiers who never asked Rome, what do we do with this guy? Not one word.

It's almost as if they didn't say anything, because it never happened.

Then there's slavery, allowed to beat them unpunished if they survive 3 days. Told by Jeezy to respect your masters. Killing your family because they don't worship him. Or women being chattels and property. It's Bronze Age customs written in many gospels, they all contradict each other. It's a myth.

''Mary doll...'' First laugh of the day ta.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Dividing the clothes happened according to the Gospel, with the Romans dishing them out.

Bones out of joint could be referring to being crucified, surely?

Dogs surround me is pretty generic but it doesn’t not fit.

Heart turning to wax the same.

Not sure about the others.

I am not really sure why there is an argument to be had about what’s described in Psalms, it’s either the biggest coincidence of all time or it isn’t.

or someone, as they did, sat down at the end, decided what they wanted in it and tried to tie bits together so their story fit somewhat, so they could convince a bunch of uneducated people that their little tale happened.

If Donald Trump got crucified and his MAGA nutjobs wrote about it and made him out to be a QAnon son of God, it doesn't make it true and doesn't mean 2,000 years later people who have been educated, have had a scientific education and know better should keep believing it. In that case, Narnia is in your wardrobe and you're actually Lord Voldemort.

 

[tonea2003]

Neither of those statements is true.

They’ve found a copy of the book of Acts (Luke part 2) dated to around 60AD.

If Luke was written before Acts, we can accurately predict it was at least in the 50’s AD, then Matthew and Mark written before then, with Mark considered the earliest, which could have been in the 30’s AD or 40’s. Christ was crucified between 28 AD and 33 AD.

This means the majority of the Gospels were written when St Peter, who was Christ’s closest disciple, was still alive and the authors were almost definitely alive.

St Paul was alive when Christ was crucified and he’s an author within the New Testament.

On your latter point, scholars who are maximalist (which means they believe the story to be accurate in terms of claims of divinity and crucifixion), are now in the majority because they’ve found a Roman letter describing Christians as followers of a man called Jesus, crucified for blasphemy.

stop telling lies, it is widely accepted that the gospels were written after pauls letters, so the earliest would be 58ad
and is more likely that marks, the first gospel is actually around 70 ad as it mentions events in jewish/roman war which happen at that time

please can you provide a link to this roman letter you cite

 

[urban genie]

Josephus was a first century Jewish Historian who wrote about Jesus being the “so-called Christ”.

Also, because the Gospels were written, it doesn’t mean they were being distributed.

Josephus is well known to had embelished some stories exspecially ones he cpuld.npt verify through his own eyes and historians and theologians agree his writings on jesus were told to him by christians he met, not from his own life experience of the man.

 

[Ban-jani]

or someone, as they did, sat down at the end, decided what they wanted in it and tried to tie bits together so their story fit somewhat, so they could convince a bunch of uneducated people that their little tale happened.

If Donald Trump got crucified and his MAGA nutjobs wrote about it and made him out to be a QAnon son of God, it doesn't make it true and doesn't mean 2,000 years later people who have been educated, have had a scientific education and know better should keep believing it. In that case, Narnia is in your wardrobe and you're actually Lord Voldemort.

People constantly say this and repeat it online without actually looking at the evidence available.

There’s this post and @Magicpole’s, where he says there’s no historical Roman evidence about Jesus and neither statements are true.

A quick Google search will show you that even most atheist scholars believe the Gospels were a significantly accurate biography (they just don’t believe the divinity) and there are 3rd party independent, non-Christian, accounts of Jesus.

Atheists bang on about being objective and yet they won’t extend that objectivity to the main thing they disagree with.

 

[Magicpole]

How do believers account for a loving God that stands by as 9m kids under five die every year from preventable causes?

Mysterious ways can go fuck itself.

Here's a thing, I don't believe he exists obviously, but if it were proved to me right now he did, I still wouldn't worship him. Any being with his power who would stand by and let these children die, is nothing but a psychotic, horrible, evil **** and he can go fuck himself and his corrupt heaven for eternity.

Thankfully, he doesn't exist and I'm.glad. Imagine if a **** like that did. Endorser of slavery, mysoginist, petty twat who needs people to tell him.how great he is.

If he were a man, he woukd be under lock and key and rightly so.

 

[stonerblue]

Comparing an Anglican Christian to a flat earther is a little stretch isn’t it?

I think atheism takes a lot of faith to believe this whole universe doesn’t have any intelligence behind it and that your whole reality is because of a bunch of chemicals in your brain.

Not really.
I'm an evidence based kinda fella and science has lots more of it than religion

 

[Ban-jani]

stop telling lies, it is widely accepted that the gospels were written after pauls letters, so the earliest would be 58ad
and is more likely that marks, the first gospel is actually around 70 ad as it mentions events in jewish/roman war which happen at that time

please can you provide a link to this roman letter you cite

Please don’t accuse me of lying.

As I’ve said, the book of Acts had a postage stamp-sized cut found, dated to around 60 AD, the book of Acts was written after Luke’s Gospel, after Matthew, and after Mark. That means Mark could have been written much earlier than originally thought.

Nobody knows for sure when.

Ive posted the Roman letter on this thread, check it out.

But here’s a passage from Wikipedia on it:

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.[9][10]

 

[BimboBob]

This isn’t true mate.

There’s a Roman letter from 64 AD that talks of “Christus” suffering the “extreme penalty” in Jerusalem.

Then there’s a Jewish historian who wrote about “a wise man” called “Jesus” (well translated in English to Jesus), being in Judea. He also mentions James, the brother of Jesus and he calls James “the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ”.

64 years later? That's not of the time. Nor is the Jewish historian.

The Romans wrote everything down. We've found records of hobnails being replaced in the army stores and other mundane items. Have we ever found the name Jesus in contemporary roman records? Nope. Nothing. And don't forget, they crucified him along with thousands of others.

As I said, there were many so called prophets with followers, bizarrely we even know the name of some of them, who were persecuted and killed. But a Jesus? Nope.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

People constantly say this and repeat it online without actually looking at the evidence available.

There’s this post and @Magicpole’s, where he says there’s no historical Roman evidence about Jesus and neither statements are true.

A quick Google search will show you that even most atheist scholars believe the Gospels were a significantly accurate biography (they just don’t believe the divinity) and there are 3rd party independent, non-Christian, accounts of Jesus.

Atheists bang on about being objective and yet they won’t extend that objectivity to the main thing they disagree with.

Guy was a public speaker of sorts who amassed a following and pissed the Romans off who had him knocked off. Then a bunch of magic was added into it to coerce the uneducated masses into believing it out of fear so the population could be controlled.

 

[Ban-jani]

Not really.
I'm an evidence based kinda fella and science has lots more of it than religion

Science and religion aren’t mutually exclusive.

Science has shown us there’s a Big Bang, which religion arrived at there being a beginbefore science.

Science has shown us the universe is incredibly finely tuned and “looks as though it’s been created” I think, according to Einstein?

Also, eye witness accounts are taken in a court of law now, especially independent ones, so why are they so readily dismissed now?

Atheism doesn’t have a monopoly on science, it’s a belief that also takes faith.

Are you going to claim you know more about science than Francis Collins or John Lennox?

By the way, your comparison to a flat earther would be a reasonable one if we’d found the body of Christ and then I still believed in the Gospels, that would be a ridiculous thing for me to do as there is evidence I can view about the truth, just like now, where I can see the curvature of the world.

It’s a lazy, stupid argument.

 

[tonea2003]

Please don’t accuse me of lying.

As I’ve said, the book of Acts had a postage stamp-sized cut found, dated to around 60 AD, the book of Acts was written after Luke’s Gospel, after Matthew, and after Mark. That means Mark could have been written much earlier than originally thought.

Nobody knows for sure when.

Ive posted the Roman letter on this thread, check it out.

But here’s a passage from Wikipedia on it:

are you just ignoring the fact marks gospel has detail in it that could not have been written until after it happened 70ad
and more to the point we dont know who wrote them, certainly not who we classicaly think as matthew mark luke or john
ok mate you maybe not lying but are ignoring evidence to suit your narrative

most modern scholars go for a date of between 80-90 http://bibleinterp.com/opeds/actapo358006.shtml

so in fact you are cherry picking the earliest date to suit your narrative

 

[Ban-jani]

64 years later? That's not of the time. Nor is the Jewish historian.

The Romans wrote everything down. We've found records of hobnails being replaced in the army stores and other mundane items. Have we ever found the name Jesus in contemporary roman records? Nope. Nothing. And don't forget, they crucified him along with thousands of others.

As I said, there were many so called prophets with followers, bizarrely we even know the name of some of them, who were persecuted and killed. But a Jesus? Nope.

There’s much more evidence for Jesus existing than many other historical figures that are taken as absolutely existing.

Among atheist scholars, the vast majority thing he existed and was crucified.

Having historical evidence of someone existing 30 years after they died in a ancient times is seen as a given they existed, for any other person.

Atheists go on about evidence and measuring and accuracy and yet ignore the facts on this subject, the fact being there’s barely an atheist scholar alive who thinks Jesus didn’t exist and wasn’t crucified.

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.[9][10]

 

[tonea2003]

Science and religion aren’t mutually exclusive.

Science has shown us there’s a Big Bang, which religion arrived at there being a beginbefore science.

Science has shown us the universe is incredibly finely tuned and “looks as though it’s been created” I think, according to Einstein?

Also, eye witness accounts are taken in a court of law now, especially independent ones, so why are they so readily dismissed now?

Atheism doesn’t have a monopoly on science, it’s a belief that also takes faith.

Are you going to claim you know more about science than Francis Collins or John Lennox?

By the way, your comparison to a flat earther would be a reasonable one if we’d found the body of Christ and then I still believed in the Gospels, that would be a ridiculous thing for me to do as there is evidence I can view about the truth, just like now, where I can see the curvature of the world.

It’s a lazy, stupid argument.

for every francis collins or john lennox i could give you steven hawking or richard dawkins
whats your point?

 

[Ban-jani]

are you just ignoring the fact marks gospel has detail in it that could not have been written until after it happened 70ad
and more to the point we dont know who wrote them, certainly not who we classicaly think as matthew mark luke or john
ok mate you maybe not lying but are ignoring evidence to suit your narrative

most modern scholars go for a date of between 80-90 http://bibleinterp.com/opeds/actapo358006.shtml

so in fact you are cherry picking the earliest date to suit your narrative

On the contrary, that’s exactly what you’re doing.

The general perception has always been 65-70 AD, not 80-90.

However there is a significant movement in secular scholarship that is now saying earlier, because of finds from other authors.

“but dates from sometime between the late 30s and early 40s”