how not to argue the post-jesus death darkness
Offline I found this so funny that I had to share it. I'm not sure if I should even bother anymore....
(from another forum, I would rather not post the link because it is more of a private forum)
I am in bold, the other is in itallics.
Okay, anything you want to call a "darkness over the whole land", which most likely refers to an eclipse. Whatever it is, such a strange event is not confirmed by anything outside the bible.
I dont see why it has to be. If it was an eclipse, you think every literate Jew with a spare piece of papyrus is going to run to there home and write OH WOW! ECLIPSE! NOW! LOOK AT IT! ITS DARK!!!! And then go deliver it to all their friends? Come on, thats expecting a little much.
Actually, yes. We know when eclipses happened back then, and that there was one a few years before Jesus's supposed death, but there is no evidence at all that one happened on that day. And a 3 hour solar eclipse to occurring during a full moon is an impossibility. If it happened, they would be all over it.
Really? You know the exact day he died? Thats quite a find, why dont you share it with us. The year too, since you know it.
Historians can narrow down Jesus' birth and death years to a span of two or three years, but you cant know the exact years.
Yes, and the eclipse happened in AD 29. Jesus's death has been narrowed down to 31-33. The solar eclipse also happened in November, which would make it even more unlikely. So, in other words, there is no proof that a 3 hour solar eclipse ever happened during that time in spring of 31-33, unless Jesus died in south africa or northeast asia.
and the fact remains that a solar eclipse must take place during a new moon, which wouldn't have made sense seeing as Jesus's death was described as being right before a full moon. if some supernatural darkness engulfed the entire land for 3 hours, it seems strange that it is not accounted for.
edit: here's a map of solar eclipses from AD 21-40 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEatlas/SEatl...SEatlas0021.GIF
and please don't start claiming NASA is biased like(according to Hitman) the oxford english dictionary...
Well then, it wasnt an eclipse. That was easy.
Then it was a supernatural darkness, which is not reported from ANY source outside of the bible. Something like that wouldn't go ignored.
It wasnt ignored dude, theres several verses in the bible about that darkness...how many people do you need to tell you that there was a darkness before you will believe it?
Should I even bother here anymore or should I just sit at my computer and continue laughing at him?
- Login to post comments
How very interesting. How very informative. I think I'll go stab myself in the brain with a Q-Tip.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I replied saying that the bible needs to be backed up before it can be taken for historical fact, and he came back with "the bible was written by real people".........so everything written by real people is true?
Just quote yourself again, especially that first line where you say "such a strange event is not confirmed by anything outside the bible", which as far as I can tell was your original point.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
Arguments like that are like listening to a skipping record play "Time Warp" from the Rocky Horror Picture Show, or "The Song that Never Ends". You offer proof that it can't be, they say that the proof is in the bible, you say you need more proof, they say that the bible is enough proof, and besides, it could have been a natural even that god did, you offer proof that it can't be...
ugh.
Or just the short version:
A) I need proof.
B) The bible is proof enough!
C) No it isn't.
D) Yes it is!!!!1!zomg!one1
wash, rinse, repeat.
The biggest pain with these is how much time we waste on part C when we KNOW that we're always 3 steps away from doing it again.
"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling
Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie
There has to be something either masochistic about it, or we just want to know we can predict the FUTURE. Like when Paisley eventually broke down and said he was a Christian, and not a pan-whatever. My favourite version:
"I'd like some proof before I believe in your invisible friend."
"You can't prove I don't have an invisible friend."
"Same question."
"Uh ... quantum mechanics."
"What?"
"The problem with induction!"
"Are you okay? Do you want me to call an ambulance or something?"
"Induction! Quantum indeterminacy!! Kant!"
"Hi, 911? Do I call you about crazy people? Yeah? Okay, I have one right here."
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Just ignore them. Debating is just pointless. It would be easier to turn watter into wine than to prove him that god never existed.