Hitchens v Wilson - Christianity vs Athiesm (8 of 11)

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, Ous114.

[KarlJohanson42]

The nobody beside Chirstopher Hitchens claims that the Amalekites needed to be treated harshly. The Bible claims that hundreds of years earlier the Amalkites attacked the Jews when the Jews invaded their territory. The Biblical order to slaughter Amelekite children attempts to justify this with that invasion, even though it took place hundreds of years earlier. The Amalakites (and their children), who were attacked by God's chosen ones, didn't commit the original attack.

[setmedic]

I don't need a man on a stick to know right from wrong...

[mrw21]

"No, he was saying that the Temple of Jerusalem would fall in 70 AD, and he was right on the money."

Hey Doug, when was the first gospel reportedly written? 70 AD?

Ahhh, yes, that's what most scholars agree on.

Ok, just checking.

[Afterthoughtbtw]

I'm sick of his 'forgeries' claim. What he is in essence saying whenever he mentions it is that every other religious claims are forgeries of something *which had not yet happened to be forged*.

[Paulmancieri67]

And so what if he predicted the sacking of Jerusalem? I mean if he had come out of the sky and prevented it then that would have been something but of course he did not. Jesus was dead.

[MartinJWillett]

The prediction of the sack of the temple was written after the sack of the temple.

[hulkbacker39]

what gives you that impression?

[MartinJWillett]

1] It is a lot easier to predict things after they happen

2] what other prediction has come true since then? Exactly.

3] do you really need a 3?

[hulkbacker39]

what makes you believe the sack of the temple happened before the prediction?

no one knows for certian when the gospels were written. But we do know that Acts does not record the death of the Paul. (65ad). Acts is the 2nd installment of after the gospel of luke. If Luke copied from Mark (luke says that he used previous writings), that certianly puts Mark WELL before the destruction of the temple in 70.

Only by presupposing the biblical accounts to be false a later date can be assigned.

[MartinJWillett]

Which part of my explanation are you having a problem with? It is unclear whether there was a prediction written that preceded the date, there is no evidence of any Christians acting as if they expected it was about to happen and subsequently there hasn't been the slightest hint of any biblical prophesy coming true. A reasonable person would conclude that the most likely explanation is that there was no prophesy in any gospel of the temple's demise until after it occurred.

[hulkbacker39]

It is most likley that the prediction preceded the destruction of temple for the reasons I mentioned. (considering Acts does not mention it or Pauls death, Acts comes after Luke which was likley after Mark). What evidence of "Christians acting as if they expected it" do you expect to find in the 40 yr or so window between AD 30 and AD 70? The Bible fortells the scattering of the Jewish people and thier return to the "promised land" in great detail. This didn't happen until 1948.