Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

So you're an anti-intellectual, and you think that Hurtado/Bauckham have apologetic interests, when they've constantly stated that their conclusions are based on evidence, not personal convictions.

I have no issue with these two men stating their conclusions regarding what ancient people believed. I respect that kind of scholarship. However, if they are anyone else tries to dig up "evidence" to prove that ancient supernatural claims are verifiable historical events, they are quacks and crack-pots.

[Gary]

Just pure lying at this point. I have asked repeatedly for a verse or proof that God stated any such rule as you stated - that the tribal rights to being king can only be passed down through the Father's blood line. Anyone reading this thread can see this is like my fourth or fifth time making it clear what I was asking. I even gave you an example in King David where he did NOT have the tribal rights to be king the way you claimed was necessary. Now in total dishonesty you are going to claim I asked you for proof of something else and worse that you answered where you never have .

Nope I asked you for proof for the claim YOU made that YOU claimed absolutely disqualified Jesus from being the Messiah - Where in any prophecy or part of the law of god handed down to Moses in the bible does it state that a king can only be king if his father's blood line runs through a previous king. David had no such qualification

Look I think everyone hear knows you are not going to answer the question because you can't . My point in holding you, after 320+ pages of you asking and receiving answers, to actually dealing with one issue that YOU needed to answer is to make it clear you have no interest in the truth of any matter. When you build an objection on almost anything and that thing is shown to be flat out wrong you just pretend you dealt with it and try and move on to another topic.

Its intellectually dishonest to say the least.

The other reason I held you to it and will for a bit longer is to encourage others to do the same thing. We've been allowing you to dance from subject to subject and its only served to encourage you in an intellectual dishonest approach to matters under your consideration. We should not be encouraging you in that sin.

http://www.chabad.org/library/moshia...ng-Solomon.htm

Gary: You still want me to prove that the pedigree from David and Solomon comes only through the father. More in a moment.

[Mikeenders]

Fibbing on the Bible #1
As anyone even with broken eyeglasses can see the verse says nothing about being descended on the father's side

Isaiah 11:1
There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.

Fibbing on the Bible #2
Fibbing on the Bible #3Fibbing on the Bible #4

Again the only thing the passage states is that a man will sit on the throne that is descended from David. Nothing about him ahving to be blood descended on his father 's side

ezekiel 34:23-24
And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd.

Fibbing on the Bible #5

Any indication here of descendancy just on the father's side counting and not the mother? Nope.


ANy other verses Gary? because OBVIOUSLY none of these verses say what the writer claimed by listing them as backing the point). You still have not presented any evidence for the claim

So NONE OF THE verses in Gary's latest copy and paste piece actually back the point that they are listed as backing - ZIp

Its all just fudge work because there are no such passages. the anti missionary Jews are invoking a rule that is NOWHERE In the Torah and based on their tradition NOT what God stated and not what Torah stated

Meanwhile unrebutted is the plain fact that DAVID HIMSELF had no ancestral claim to the throne on his father's side.

[Mikeenders]

Ok, let's get into this issue and settle it. First, must the Messiah be a descendant of David AND Solomon:

Not my question.don't try to wiggle. The issue I asked you about was being a descendant only through the father's side.

Your ability to cut and paste is not in question. Thats all you do. I asked for biblical evidence of your claim that it could only be through the father's side. Nothing else will suffice. Solomon btw was merely the second in line. the promise to David is the promise to David and messiah in scripture is always called the son of david.


oh - oh. that aint good for you Gary. descendant through the Wife's side eh? (not that that tradition counts as scriptural either but it interesting)

[One Bad Pig]

I'm could care less if the earliest Christians developed a high Christology BEFORE Jesus had even died! Even if Hurtado and Bauckham can prove that the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was Yahweh himself, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, that would not be evidence for the Christian equivalent of leprechauns (the resurrection of a dead body). Studying the beliefs of ancient peoples is one thing, trying to convince people living in the 21st century that first century brain-dead bodies were reanimated/resurrected is not scholarship, it is religious supernaturalism, which I say is unprovable, superstitious nonsense.

We are quite aware that you couldn't care less about any of the issues you've raised in this thread. Your mind is already made up.

[Gary]

Fibbing on the Bible #1
As anyone even with broken eyeglasses can see the verse says nothing about being descended on the father's side

Isaiah 11:1
There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.

Fibbing on the Bible #2
Fibbing on the Bible #3Fibbing on the Bible #4

Again the only thing the passage states is that a man will sit on the throne that is descended from David. Nothing about him ahving to be blood descended on his father 's side

ezekiel 34:23-24
And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd.

Fibbing on the Bible #5

Any indication here of descendancy just on the father's side counting and not the mother? Nope.


ANy other verses Gary? because OBVIOUSLY none of these verses say what the writer claimed by listing them as backing the point). You still have not presented any evidence for the claim

So NONE OF THE verses in Gary's latest copy and paste piece actually back the point that they are listed as backing - ZIp

Its all just fudge work because there are no such passages. the anti missionary Jews are invoking a rule that is NOWHERE In the Torah and based on their tradition NOT what God stated and not what Torah stated

Meanwhile unrebutted is the plain fact that DAVID HIMSELF had no ancestral claim to the throne on his father's side.

I don't understand why you keep harping about David not having an ancestral claim to the throne. I fully agree, he did not.

I think the above passages from the Hebrew Bible clearly demonstrate that the Messiah must be a descendant of David and Solomon. So the final question is, Could Jesus be the messiah based on his mother's descent from these two men?

In my fifteen minute google search, I did not find a Bible passage that says that the Messiah must be descended through his father's male ancestry to David and Solomon. So if that is what has Mike all worked up, let's make Mike's day: I was wrong! I was wrong! I was wrong!

However, what I did find out is that prior to Ezra and the Babylonian captivity, Jewishness was determined patrilineally and not matrilineally---if the father was a Jew, the child was a Jew. Many of the men mentioned in the first few books of the OT married non-Jews, but their children were always considered Jews/Israelites. So inheritance from the father was what mattered. Does that prove that Mary's lineage could not be used? No.

However, if you look at the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke, do we see ANY women mentioned in the genealogies? Answer: only as a side note regarding who their husband was, such as with Ruth and Boaz. The ancestry is traced from son to father, son to father, son to father, never son to mother, son to mother, etc. Is Mary mentioned in these genealogies? Answer: no. In fact, both genealogies state very clearly that the genealogy being listed is that of David, and in Luke, the author mentions at least twice in other passages in his gospel that Joseph WAS a descendant of David. He never ONCE mentions that Mary was a descendant of David.

1. So could Mary have been a descendant of David and Solomon? Sure. It's also possible that I am a descendant from King Arthur of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Anything is possible, but we have no evidence to support this claim, so why jump to silly conclusions?

2. Could the messianic requirement for the messiah to be a descendant of David and Solomon allow for ancestry going through one's mother? It seems no Bible verse precludes it, so yes, it is possible. But again, it flies in the face of all the evidence.

So once again, we are left with another of Christianity's major tenets held together by the flimsiest of assumptions: that a genealogy that says it is of a man named Joseph is really of the man's wife's father.

Preposterous.

One preposterous claim, upon another, upon another, etc...and if you don't believe it all as the absolute TRUTH...God's gonna get ya for that! Come on people. Wake up! How much more silliness must we wade through before you see this tall tale for what it is: an ancient fable.

[Mikeenders]

I don't understand why you keep harping about David not having an ancestral claim to the throne. I fully agree, he did not.

Gary why can you never follow basic logic. If god approved of David with no ancestry it DESTROYS your claim that such a requirement exists in the law. or with God. Thats the point

In my fifteen minutes google search, I did not find a Bible passage that says that the Messiah must be descended through his father's male ancestry to David and Solomon. So if that is what has Mike all worked up, let's make Mike's day: I was wrong! I was wrong! I was wrong!

However,

There is no "however" Truth is what matters Gary. No christian is in this thread really cares to hear you say you were wrong. If you hadn't noticed over the last few hundred pages we have known that for some time. My day is neither worse nor better for that alleged confession (far from genuine because you took it back rather quickly by the end of your post arguing for it again).

what I did find out is that prior to Ezra and the Babylonian captivity, Jewishness was determined patrilineally and not matrilineally---if the father was a Jew, the child was a Jew. Many of the men mentioned in the first few books of the OT married non-Jews, but their children were always considered Jews/Israelites. So inheritance from the father was what mattered. Does that prove that Mary's lineage could not be used? No.

Actually its a complete red herring because Jewishness has nothing to do with this issue unless you are claiming Jesus is not a jew now.

However, if you look at the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke, do we see ANY women mentioned in the genealogies? Answer: only as a side note regarding who their husband was, such as with Ruth and Boaz. The ancestry is traced from son to father, son to father, son to father, never son to mother, son to mother, etc. Is Mary mentioned in these genealogies? Answer: no.

That was the convention of the day and its undeniable. Thats precisely why the absence of a woman in a genealogy means nothing. You have just provided a great example of where a man would be named even when a woman was the basis of the descent. this is your copy and paste and hour or two ago

SO in some Jewish genealogies it would be perfectly fine to list Nathan as a forebear of the messiah even though actual link was his wife!! in some Jewish references Messiah is son of Nathan who is claimed there didn't even have a son. Second as is well known genealogies often skipped generations and "son" as I have alluded to can even be grandson and great grandson. In between men AND women can be left out. Third it is evidently clear that Joseph took Jesus as his son legally so it would be almost an affront to list him otherwise in any legal document or in social settings.

In fact, both genealogies state very clearly that the genealogy being listed is that of David, and in Luke, the author mentions at least twice in other passages in his gospel that Joseph WAS a descendant of David. He never ONCE mentions that Mary was a descendant of David.

This has been well known for centuries. Jewish genealogies rarely name out the women Even in cases where a man had no son his other descendants through his daughters were likely to be named without his daughter precisely because other members in his tribe and family would marry them as commanded by the law. Thats the nature of a patriarchal society. trying to make a point of any woman not being mentioned is a non starter as such. there were even cases when a child would be actually fathered by a brother and the NON father brother would be named as the Dad EXCLUSIVELY to accommodate laws of inheritance. It was called raising seed to your brother. So Genealogies often followed these conventions over who the actual father in fact was for purely legal reasons beyond actual paternity.

1. So could Mary have been a descendant of David and Solomon? Sure. It's also possible that I am a descendant from King Arthur of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Anything is possible, but we have no evidence to support this claim, so why jump to silly conclusions?

The only thing silly is your logic. Genealogies are not for us today. They were for people back then who could potentially verify them. Your point is just silly because no matter what - you could deny ancestry based on the fact that no DNA test was available. so truth and facts are - ALL GENEALOGIES were based on testimony and to an extent upon common knowledge. No other evidence could possibly have existed but what someone wrote to or attested to. You have no one attesting to your ancestry from king arthur so you are the only one missing the only kind of evidence that could be provided at the time. We clearly have two genealogies for a reason and the most obviosu of reasons is that one is a genealogy of Mary and the other is a genealogy of Joseph. Of course its an unusual circumstance. no one had ever done such a genealogy before because no one had had ever been virgin born before

At any rate Bottom line is you have ZERO proof that Jesus could not have been the messiah as you alleged previously. Nada .s o we can take that claim and throw it in the trash bag where it belongs and look to the other indications of Jesus being the Messiah that don't rely on a genealogy which no one could at this time in history either verify or deny

2. Could the messianic requirement for the messiah to be a descendant of David and Solomon allow for ancestry going through one's mother? It seems no Bible verse precludes it, so yes, it is possible. But again, it flies in the face of all the evidence.

If flies in the face of no evidence whatsoever. Thats just you trying rather dishonestly to pretend you recognize you were wrong but still claiming the evidence supports your claim

]

So once again, we are left with another of Christianity's major tenets held together by the flimsiest of assumptions:

So once again we are left with your vast ignorance. in this case claiming that although genealogies rarely ever mentioned the woman the absence of a woman in a genealogy is a significant fact and in even more ignorance claiming that the geneaologies in the gospels are major tenets of Christianity. The Gospels were not written until decades after Jesus was identified as the messiah descended from David. the early church did not rely on them to determine jesus was the messiah son of David.

Skeptics get amnesia when they get into subjects like this and forget that they themselves hold Paul's gospels as being prior to the gospels where Paul cites his knowledge that Jesus WAS a son of David. Common knowledge of family relations being all that anyone could attest to at the time.

that a genealogy that says it is of a man named Joseph is really of the man's wife's father.

actually your lack of reading skills is showing again. Luke instantly throws the idea that a man name Joseph was the actual father of Jesus

Luke 3:23
"And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph"


IN all your ramblings you just clean try and skip that the genealogy itself in Luke calls the paternity of Jesus by Joseph into question.

[Gary]

Gary why can you never follow basic logic. If god approved of David with no ancestry it DESTROYS your claim that such a requirement exists in the law. or with God. Thats the point



There is no "however" Truth is what matters Gary. No christian is in this thread really cares to hear you say you were wrong. If you hadn't noticed over the last few hundred pages we have known that for some time. My day is neither worse nor better for that alleged confession (far from genuine because you took it back rather quickly by the end of your post arguing for it again).




Actually its a complete red herring because Jewishness has nothing to do with this issue unless you are claiming Jesus is not a jew now.



That was the convention of the day and its undeniable. Thats precisely why the absence of a woman in a genealogy means nothing. You have just provided a great example of where a man would be named even when a woman was the basis of the descent. this is your copy and paste and hour or two ago



SO in some Jewish genealogies it would be perfectly fine to list Nathan as a forebear of the messiah even though actual link was his wife!! in some Jewish references Messiah is son of Nathan who is claimed there didn't even have a son. Second as is well known genealogies often skipped generations and "son" as I have alluded to can even be grandson and great grandson. In between men AND women can be left out. Third it is evidently clear that Joseph took Jesus as his son legally so it would be almost an affront to list him otherwise in any legal document or in social settings.




This has been well known for centuries. Jewish genealogies rarely name out the women Even in cases where a man had no son his other descendants through his daughters were likely to be named without his daughter precisely because other members in his tribe and family would marry them as commanded by the law. Thats the nature of a patriarchal society. trying to make a point of any woman not being mentioned is a non starter as such. there were even cases when a child would be actually fathered by a brother and the NON father brother would be named as the Dad EXCLUSIVELY to accommodate laws of inheritance. It was called raising seed to your brother. So Genealogies often followed these conventions over who the actual father in fact was for purely legal reasons beyond actual paternity.



The only thing silly is your logic. Genealogies are not for us today. They were for people back then who could potentially verify them. Your point is just silly because no matter what - you could deny ancestry based on the fact that no DNA test was available. so truth and facts are - ALL GENEALOGIES were based on testimony and to an extent upon common knowledge. No other evidence could possibly have existed but what someone wrote to or attested to. You have no one attesting to your ancestry from king arthur so you are the only one missing the only kind of evidence that could be provided at the time. We clearly have two genealogies for a reason and the most obviosu of reasons is that one is a genealogy of Mary and the other is a genealogy of Joseph. Of course its an unusual circumstance. no one had ever done such a genealogy before because no one had had ever been virgin born before

At any rate Bottom line is you have ZERO proof that Jesus could not have been the messiah as you alleged previously. Nada .s o we can take that claim and throw it in the trash bag where it belongs and look to the other indications of Jesus being the Messiah that don't rely on a genealogy which no one could at this time in history either verify or deny



If flies in the face of no evidence whatsoever. Thats just you trying rather dishonestly to pretend you recognize you were wrong but still claiming the evidence supports your claim

]

So once again we are left with your vast ignorance. in this case claiming that although genealogies rarely ever mentioned the woman the absence of a woman in a genealogy is a significant fact and in even more ignorance claiming that the geneaologies in the gospels are major tenets of Christianity. The Gospels were not written until decades after Jesus was identified as the messiah descended from David. the early church did not rely on them to determine jesus was the messiah son of David.

Skeptics get amnesia when they get into subjects like this and forget that they themselves hold Paul's gospels as being prior to the gospels where Paul cites his knowledge that Jesus WAS a son of David. Common knowledge of family relations being all that anyone could attest to at the time.



actually your lack of reading skills is showing again. Luke instantly throws the idea that a man name Joseph was the actual father of Jesus

Luke 3:23
"And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph"


IN all your ramblings you just clean try and skip that the genealogy itself in Luke calls the paternity of Jesus by Joseph into question.

For all your pontificating and blabbering, you have failed to answer MY question. I answered yours, you answer mine:

What evidence is there that Mary was a descendant of King David? Even if all your scenarios are true, you still need evidence that Mary was descended from David in order for Jesus to have any chance of a claim to Davidic lineage. Do you have any evidence, or only assumptions?

[Gary]

Jesus Descended From King David

The Old Testament tells us that from the seed of King David will arise a savior of Judea who will rule the earth:

"The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.....I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely."(Psalms 132:11 and Jeremiah 23:5-6)

Apostle Paul also noted that Jesus was a descendant of David: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3). Since a man born of a virgin and a holy ghost has no mortal father, it is impossible that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph who descended from David. Thus, Jesus' birth could not have fulfilled the David prophecy unless Mary, his mother, was descended from David. We will now explore this possibility.

Was Mary a Descendant of King David?

Defenders of inerrancy, who strain mightily to prove that their Jesus was of the seed of David, point to the genealogy in Luke: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."(Luke 3:23). Inerrantists reject the obvious meaning of this verse and claim that the word "which" refers all the way back to Jesus--not to Joseph. Thus, the inerrantists claim that Jesus was a "son", or descendant, of Heli, who they allege must have been an ancestor of Mary. Once the reader jumps over that hurdle of unbelievability, the inerrantists claim that the readers should be able to reason through a two step logical argument which leads to the conclusion that Mary is the daughter of Heli. Here is the argument:

The inerrantists claim that since the reader knows that Jesus was virgin-born, they would naturally conclude that Jesus could not have been the "son" of Heli in the usual meaning of the term, but some other kind of "son", or descendant.

The next cognitive step required by the inerrantists' convoluted logic is to recognize that since a virgin-born Jesus could not have had any kind of paternal ancestors, it follows logically that Heli must have been one of Jesus' maternal ancestors. Thus, Jesus' mother, Mary, was descended from Heli, who was descended from King David.

Thus, in order to fulfill the prophecy that Jesus was of the seed of David, but still virgin-born, the inerrantists have to attach an improbable interpretation to the wording of Luke 3:23, then pretend that Luke believed that his future readers would naturally and without difficulty work their way through the logic above, without help.

They Wouldn't Have Believed It

No matter how inerrantists present their extremely improbable case for Mary being a descendant of David, it wouldn't matter since even if there had been any suggestion that Jesus traced his lineage back to David through his mother, the Bible writers would have been laughed out of town because, in Biblical times,

"Women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that it was then believed that the complete human was present in the man's sperm (the woman's egg wasn't discovered until 1827). The woman's womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted. Just as there was barren soil that could not produce crops, so also the Bible speaks of barren wombs that could not produce children." [1]

Thus, if the author of Luke had wished to risk personal ridicule by implying that Mary could transmit King David's seed, he almost certainly would have anticipated the incredulity of the masses and told the readers that this was happening for the first time ever. Furthermore, Luke would have alerted the reader that he wasn't going to bother putting Mary's name anywhere in her genealogy, and he also wouldn't have forced the reader to mentally reposition the parenthetical remark in "Heli begat Jesus" verse in order to see its "true" meaning.

Source: http://skepticalviewsofchristianity....and_david.html

[Apologiaphoenix]

Gary continues his relentless dedication to seeking truth.

Provided he doesn't to do something hard like, you know, read a book.

[Gary]

Gary continues his relentless dedication to seeking truth.

Provided he doesn't to do something hard like, you know, read a book.

Why did Matthew include four women in Joseph's genealogy?

Matthew mentions four women in the Joseph's genealogy.

a. Tamar - disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-19).

b. Rahab - was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (Joshua 2:1).

c. Ruth - at her mother-in-law Naomi's request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (Ruth 3:1-14).

d. Bathsheba - became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (2 Samuel 11:2-5).

To have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual. That all four of the women mentioned are guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence. Why would Matthew mention these, and only these, women? The only reason that makes any sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary prior to their getting married, and that this was known by others who argued that because of this Jesus could not be the Messiah. By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is in effect saying, "The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four "loose women" in his genealogy, so what difference does one more make?"

Gary: This explanation fits quite well with the fact that Paul never mentions that Jesus was born of a virgin, but yet believes that Jesus was of Davidic descent.

Article: Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.

The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).

Gary: Paul must have also believed that Jesus' father was a descendant of David, giving Jesus a Davidic pedigree, but why? Because the Church had not yet invented the Virgin Birth story!!! Matthew and Luke concocted genealogies to show that Joseph, Jesus real human father, was of the lineage of David to shoehorn Jesus into yet another messianic prophecy. However, the Church came to realize that their two invented stories were contradictory: If the genealogies in Matthew and Luke were both of Joseph, how could Jesus be virgin born and still be a descendant of David??

Answer: Completely butcher the common sense understanding of Luke's genealogy to imply that it was Mary's father's genealogy!

Come on, people! Can't you see a con job when you see it??

Article: http://infidels.org/library/modern/p...adictions.html

[Apologiaphoenix]

Oh no! Books! Gary might have to think!

[Gary]

Oh no! Books! Gary might have to think!

Has anyone every belonged to an organization in which the leadership was as corrupt as the typical Chicago mayor's office?

Every time there is criticism of the behavior and corrupt actions of the leadership of the organization, the reaction of the leadership is to call for the formation of a committee to "investigate the issue"? And what happens with these "committees"? They hold meeting after meeting, dragging out the process, until everyone forgets what the original issue was, and then the leadership disbands the committee due to a lack of an agenda.

Well, folks, that is what Nick and others on this site want you to do. They want you to ignore the fact that there is ZERO evidence that Mary was a descendant of King David. They want you to ignore the fact that Paul never claims to have seen a resurrected body in reality (just a bright light in a vision). They want you to ignore that NO alleged eyewitness of the alleged post resurrection appearances of Jesus was martyred for refusing to recant his eyewitness testimony of seeing a resurrected, immortal body. Nope, Nick and his conservative Christian friends don't want you to use your own brains and see the weak, very weak evidence they use to hold up their ancient superstition, they want to refer you to a stack of books by "experts" in resurrected ghosts and goblins, spending hours, days, weeks, and months reading philosophical psychobabble for why, for instance, 1 + 1+1 = 3, before you make up your mind.

They are trying to stall you! They don't want you to see the plain truth right in front of your face. They want to make something so simple that you can figure out it's veracity on your own, into something so complicated, that by the time you are done listening to their "experts'" spin, you don't know which side is up and which is down. You don't need an expert to figure any of this out!

IT'S A SUPERSTITION! YOU DON'T NEED TO READ A BOOK TO NOT BELIEVE SUPERSTITIONS!

[Gary]

Oh no! Books! Gary might have to think!

Here are two books that I DO recommend that everyone read:

1. The Gospel according to Matthew
2. The Jewish Bible

Why? Answer: If you compare Matthew's "fulfilled prophecies" involving Jesus to the actual prophecies in the Jewish Bible you will see how the author of Matthew was either a really gullible dope, or, the biggest "big fish" story-teller in history (a bald face liar). Read this:

THE TRUTH BEHIND THE PROPHECIES - MATTHEW'S BIG BLUNDER

Since the prophecies mentioned above do not, in their original context, refer to Jesus, why did Matthew include them in his gospel? There are two possibilities:

1. The church says that the words had a hidden future context as well as the original context, ie, God was keeping very important secrets from His chosen people.

2. Matthew, in his zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, searched the Old Testament for passages (sometimes just phrases) that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those "prophecies."

Fortunately for those who really want to know the truth, Matthew made a colossal blunder later in his gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above possibilities is true. His blunder involves what is known as Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or John) or riding on two donkeys (if you believe Matthew). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, "on them he sat."

Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word translated "and" in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of "even" (which is used in many translations) for emphasis. The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. Although the result is rather humorous, it is also very revealing. It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus' life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event. Matthew's gospel is full of fulfilled prophecies. Working the way Matthew did, and believing as the church does in "future contexts," any phrase in the Bible could be turned into a fulfilled prophecy!

Source: http://infidels.org/library/modern/p...adictions.html

[Apologiaphoenix]

I already dealt with this and oh geez. Riding on two donkeys. The them refers to the garments.