Did Mary outlive Jesus?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

No, they killed them all at midnight, suddenly. Poison isn't that fast.

At least it doesn't seem plausible to me. Poisoned food doesn't fit with what's described in Exodus.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I haven't studied the prophecy stuff, but many of those prophecies were self-fulfilling .

And many were easily satisfied by making stuff up. It simply makes far more sense that the gospel writer made it up than to think that he actually had records/reports of Jesus' birth.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That being said I don't think it's hard to move to another town so the child is born there.

Do I believe Zoroastians followed a star to Jesus and called him King of the Jews? Maybe. They liked to look at stars. Maybe it was a "falling star".

Its not about whether or not the story seems remotely credible, its about whether it is the most likely.
It is simply most likely, that Jesus was born at home, and the gospel writer made up the part about the census in order to place Jesus' birth at the right place to fit prophesy.
Similarly with the 'wise men'. There is simply no good reason to think it has even a grain of truth to it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And many were easily satisfied by making stuff up. It simply makes far more sense that the gospel writer made it up than to think that he actually had records/reports of Jesus' birth.

I think the term for making things up that are not true is either writing fiction or lying. I suppose you are not accusing them of lying. So you must think this is harmless fiction like "Star Trek", "Harry Potter", or "the theory of evolution".

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its not about whether or not the story seems remotely credible, its about whether it is the most likely.
It is simply most likely, that Jesus was born at home, and the gospel writer made up the part about the census in order to place Jesus' birth at the right place to fit prophesy.
Similarly with the 'wise men'. There is simply no good reason to think it has even a grain of truth to it.

It does not make sense to me that they choose to die rather than recant their made-up story.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No, they killed them all at midnight, suddenly. Poison isn't that fast.

At least it doesn't seem plausible to me. Poisoned food doesn't fit with what's described in Exodus.

Where in Exodus does it describe Moses and his followers sneaking around at night? I got the impression that they all secured themselves behind closed doors with the blood of lambs smeared over their doorposts to ward off any evil coming on them that night from spirits.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think the term for making things up that are not true is either writing fiction or lying. I suppose you are not accusing them of lying. So you must think this is harmless fiction like "Star Trek", "Harry Potter", or "the theory of evolution".

I think it was common practice at the time and the writer did not expect his readers to believe every word as fact. I wouldn't categorize it as either lying nor pure fiction. Maybe 'artistic licence' would be a better term.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its not about whether or not the story seems remotely credible, its about whether it is the most likely.
It is simply most likely, that Jesus was born at home, and the gospel writer made up the part about the census in order to place Jesus' birth at the right place to fit prophesy.
Similarly with the 'wise men'. There is simply no good reason to think it has even a grain of truth to it.

I disagree.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Where in Exodus does it describe Moses and his followers sneaking around at night? I got the impression that they all secured themselves behind closed doors with the blood of lambs smeared over their doorposts to ward off any evil coming on them that night from spirits.

Something was out there killing firstborns.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I disagree.

Why? What is your reasoning if any?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why? What is your reasoning if any?

I think you're hyperskeptical. You don't seem to have any reasoning for your skepticism. I've given most of my reasoning; the details you think are made up are perfectly plausible. There were earlier accounts the authors of the Gospels drew from.

Can I PROVE that these details happened? No. But I think your emphatic denial of everything in the Gospels is irrational.

If I remember correctly you showed the same hyperskepticism about Eden being under the Persian Gulf. You decided all the identifying details in the Bible were just made up for no reason I can tell other than pure irrational skepticism.

For example, I showed you this, which is a detailed analysis of Eden with no magic or superstition involved:

http://ldolphin.org/eden/

Your response - irrational denial without addressing any of the argument put forth. "It's not likely" (in your opinion, without solid analysis) is not an impressive argument. That's the same crap religious people pull when denying abiogenesis and evolution.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think you're hyperskeptical. You don't seem to have any reasoning for your skepticism. I've given most of my reasoning; the details you think are made up are perfectly plausible. There were earlier accounts the authors of the Gospels drew from.

Can I PROVE that these details happened? No. But I think your emphatic denial of everything in the ...[text shortened]... ment. That's the same crap religious people pull when denying abiogenesis and evolution.

We deny abiogenesis and evolution because they are stupid. 😏

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think you're hyperskeptical. You don't seem to have any reasoning for your skepticism.

I have very good reasons, and I have stated them. Must I restate them?
1. The only reason for mentioning the events surrounding Jesus' birth are to support prophesy. Do you at least realize that this is the case?
2. I find it highly unlikely that the gospel writers would have known anything about the details of Jesus' birth.
3. I find it perfectly plausible that the gospel writers (or their sources) made it up. I find this far more plausible than that the events were even partially accurate.
4. Some of the events, such as the census do not even fit with other historical records.

But I think your emphatic denial of everything in the Gospels is irrational.
I do not think I have emphatically denied everything in the Gospels. I have merely stated what I think to be the most plausible explanation for the origin of the record of events surrounding Jesus' birth.

If I remember correctly you showed the same hyperskepticism about Eden being under the Persian Gulf.
So for this reason you are prejudging my comments here and misunderstanding what I am saying?
Yes, I find it an interesting thought experiment to ask "after a world wide flood, how would Noah have known how far he traveled in the ark"? What if he was originally in New Zealand?
Do I think Eden existed? Of course not.

For example, I showed you this, which is a detailed analysis of Eden with no magic or superstition involved:
Eden is by definition superstition.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have very good reasons, and I have stated them. Must I restate them?
1. The only reason for mentioning the events surrounding Jesus' birth are to support prophesy. Do you at least realize that this is the case?
2. I find it highly unlikely that the gospel writers would have known anything about the details of Jesus' birth.
3. I find it perfectly pla is of Eden with no magic or superstition involved:
Eden is by definition superstition.[/b]

1. Wrong. People often write down details about events that are dramatic.
2. Your opinion of what intuitively seems unlikely is irrelevant and unsupported by the fact that the Gospel writers referenced earlier documents, some of which have been found.
3. See 2.
4. I agree the census story is probably false. Thus I take the Gospel that mentioned it with more skepticism than the other three.

I do not think I have emphatically denied everything in the Gospels.

Yes you have. Tell me - what did the Gospels get right?

So for this reason you are prejudging my comments here and misunderstanding what I am saying?

I am prejudging you based on your demonstrated irrational bias against the Bible and I am not misunderstanding what you are writing. You seem to be misunderstanding what you are writing.

Yes, I find it an interesting thought experiment to ask "after a world wide flood, how would Noah have known how far he traveled in the ark"? What if he was originally in New Zealand?

There was no civilization in New Zealand at that time. No writing. New Zealand is inconsistent with all of the specific details that are written in the book. Noah may have gotten it wrong.

Eden is by definition superstition.

No, Eden is by definition located in a very specific place as described in detail. What "definition" are you getting this from?