Do you REALLY KNOW why?

[TheProcess]

Erum.excuse me, process. Luke.4:18. The spirit of the Lordis upon Me and has annoined Me to bring good news to the poor (a). I won't complete the whole passagr, but you see Jesus was annointed by the holy spirit.

And? Is this evidence that anyone but a Christian would accept?

[TheProcess]

And those Doctors - what do they know! All those cures, and medicines, and evidence that back up Biblical accounts (example of circumcizing babies on the 8th with relevance to Vitamin K). Must have been coincidence, or the doctors are in all a part of this Christian drama!

Well I would have to look into specific claims of course, but I think I have heard this kind of thing before: where Muslims talk about all the "science" in the Quran.

[TheProcess]

Back to a secular, non-Christian account - Josephus wrote of the risen Christ...

You mean the "Testimonium Flavianum"? Its authenticity is disputed. It may be entirely a forgery, or it may (at least) have been altered.

"For centuries Christian writers took the position that Josephus wrote the Testimonium more or less in its current form. Today almost no secular scholar holds that position: however, many writers claim that Josephus did write something about Jesus which has been corrupted in the surviving Greek text."

"Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

[TheProcess]

I did a quick search, something I came across:

"The majority of classicists, historians, and archaeologists believe that many other peoples of the ancient world commonly had a knowledge of medicine and health issues, at least as good as that of the Hebrews, and thus the Biblically given specification does not represent divine inspiration. At the earliest estimate, the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testment) was written around 1400 BC, a time by which many complex nearby civilizations such as Ancient Egypt, the Aegean civilization, the Hittites, and the Elamites all had existed for many hundreds, even thousands, of years. These civilizations had large cities with public sanitation systems [7], and many medical documents."

"In Genesis 17:12, God commanded Abraham to circumcise baby boys on the eighth day of their lives. It has since been discovered that certain blood clotting factors are at their highest concentration on the 8th day of life, making this the earliest safe time to perform surgery unenhanced by other drugs or medical procedures. In a world where many children died shortly after birth, circumcising a child to dedicate it to God after it has survived for a week, may have had more to do with its chance of survival than medical considerations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible

Edited October 21, 2006 by TheProcess

[TheProcess]

And also:

Claim

The Bible, remarkably for its time, notes that the eighth day after birth is the saftest time to perform circumcisions [Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:2-3]. When a baby is born, they have no bacteria in their intestines for the first few days. By the seventh day, the bacteria multiply and produce vitamin K. Without vitamin K and prothrombin protein (which is produced by the liver using vitamin K), the bood will not clot properly and the possibility of severe bleeding as well as infection would make circumcision dangerous in a primitive medical situation.

Responses

Whether factually accurate or not, this doesn't have implications for a divine origin of the Bible. Pre-scientific societies often have useful procedural medical knowledge derived from long periods of trial and error. So this has no clear implications for divine origin of this part, let alone other parts of the Bible.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Bible_spec...or_circumcision

[Floatingaxe]

Don't fret, brothers in Christ. Non-believers dispute everything. It's never going to stop...only the Holy Spirit can infiltrate hard hearts.

Remember Matthew 7:6

Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Jesus said it for a reason. State your case and move on.

[TheProcess]

SoulGrind, what do you think? Did the zombies return to their graves? Or perhaps they stayed and lived with the inhabitants of Jerusalem?

[StewartP]

And those Doctors - what do they know! All those cures, and medicines, and evidence that back up Biblical accounts (example of circumcizing babies on the 8th with relevance to Vitamin K). Must have been coincidence, or the doctors are in all a part of this Christian drama!

Well I would have to look into specific claims of course, but I think I have heard this kind of thing before: where Muslims talk about all the "science" in the Quran.

Where does this 8 days come from? What if the baby was circumsised on the 7th day? Vitamin K levils critically low? What about the 34th day? Too high? What if the 8th day the closest to birth we can get it without having too low levels? Why would God ask us to cut it that fine? It would make more sense (from a purely vitamin K level of course) to circumsize at 1 month.

Is it not possible, that after generations, hundreds of years of circumsision, experience showed that if you circumsised a baby less than a week old, it was more risky than circumsising him after.

4000 years later we discover the existance of Vitamin K, retrofit it to circumsision lore and hey presto! more wonders of the biblical science.

[eric]

Erum.excuse me, process. Luke.4:18. The spirit of the Lordis upon Me and has annoined Me to bring good news to the poor (a). I won't complete the whole passagr, but you see Jesus was annointed by the holy spirit.

And? Is this evidence that anyone but a Christian would accept?

No it's only evidence thay you don't know what you are talking about

[TheProcess]

No it's only evidence thay you don't know what you are talking about

Fine -- then answer the point I have been making. Jesus was never an "anointed one", so he certainly can't be the anointed one. Any claim that he was anointed in some special way by God is worthless: I could make the same claim about myself and so could anyone else.