Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

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

Spin, spin, and more spin.

The Gospels are rife with contradictions and later Church interpolations as the Christian beliefs evolved:

WHY DID JOHN BAPTIZE JESUS?

John baptized for repentance (Matthew 3:11). Since Jesus was supposedly without sin, he had nothing to repent of. The fact that he was baptized by John has always been an embarrassment to the church. The gospels offer no explanation for Jesus' baptism, apart from the meaningless explanation given in Matthew 3:14-15 "to fulfill all righteousness." Other passages, which indicate that Jesus did not consider himself sinless, are also an embarrassment to the church (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19).

Luke, who claims to be chronological (Luke 1:3), tries to give the impression that John did not baptize Jesus. Luke's account of Jesus' baptism occurs after the account of John's imprisonment (Luke 3:20-21).

WHY DIDN'T JOHN THE BAPTIST BECOME A FOLLOWER OF JESUS?

If John knew that Jesus was the son of God, why didn't he become a disciple of Jesus? And why didn't all, or even most, of John's disciples become Jesus' disciples? Most of John's disciples remained loyal to him, even after his death, and a sect of his followers persisted for centuries.

The gospel writers were forced to include Jesus' baptism in their gospels so that they could play it down. They could not ignore it because John's followers and other Jews who knew of Jesus' baptism were using the fact of his baptism to challenge the idea that Jesus was the sinless son of God. The gospel writers went to great pains to invent events that showed John as being subordinate to Jesus.

WHAT DID JOHN THE BAPTIST KNOW ABOUT JESUS AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

John's first encounter with Jesus was while both of them were still in their mothers' wombs, at which time John, apparently recognizing his Saviour, leaped for joy (Luke 1:44). Much later, while John is baptizing, he refers to Jesus as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", and "the Son of God" (John 1:29,36). Later still, John is thrown in prison from which he does not return alive. John's definite knowledge of Jesus as the son of God and saviour of the world is explicitly contradicted by Luke 7:18-23 in which the imprisoned John sends two of his disciples to ask Jesus, "Are you the one who is coming, or do we look for someone else?"

Gary: Pathetic!


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

[Apologiaphoenix]

Gary somehow thinks saying spin is an answer.

[Gary]

Gary somehow thinks saying spin is an answer.

And here is more spin from this ancient tall tale:

THE LORD'S SUPPER - INSTITUTED BY JESUS OR PAUL?

In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus institutes the Lord's Supper during the Passover meal (in John's gospel the Lord's Supper is not instituted - Jesus was dead by the time of the Passover meal).

In 1 Corinthians 11:23 the apostle Paul writes, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread..." Here Paul claims that he got the instructions for the Lord's Supper directly from Jesus (evidently from one of his many revelations). Paul writes these words about twenty years after Jesus' death, and had the church already been celebrating the Lord's Supper he certainly would have been aware of it and would have had no need to receive it from the Lord. Some apologists try to play games with the text to make it seem like Paul actually received the instructions from the other apostles, but one thing Paul stresses is that what he teaches he receives from no man (Galatians 1:11-12).

The Lord's supper was not invented by Paul, but was borrowed by him from Mithraism, the mystery religion that existed long before Christianity and was Christianity's chief competitor up until the time of Constantine. In Mithraism, the central figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected. Believers in Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Part of the Mithraic communion liturgy included the words, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."[*].

The early Church Fathers Justin Martyr and Tertullian tried to say that Mithraism copied the Lord's Supper from Christianity, but they were forced to say that demons had copied it since only demons could copy an event in advance of its happening! They could not say that the followers of Mithras had copied it - it was a known fact that Mithraism had included the ritual a long time before Christ was born.

Where did Mithraism come from? The ancient historian Plutarch mentioned Mithraism in connection with the pirates of Cilicia in Asia Minor encountering the Roman general Pompey in 67 BC. More recently, in 1989 Mithraic scholar David Ulansey wrote a book, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, in which he convincingly shows that Mithraism originated in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia. That this is also the home town of the apostle Paul cannot be a coincidence.

Paul admits that he did not know Jesus during Jesus' lifetime. He also says that his gospel was not taught to him by any man (Galatians 1:11-12). All of Paul's theology is based on his own revelations, or visions. Like dreams, visions or hallucinations do not come from nowhere, but reveal what is already in a person's subconscious. It is very likely that the source of most of Paul's visions, and therefore most of his theology, is to be found in Mithraism. That we find Jesus at the Last Supper saying more or less the same thing Paul said to the Corinthians many years later is another example of the church modifying the gospels to incorporate the theology of Paul, which eventually won out over the theology of Jesus' original disciples.

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

[Gary]

More proof that the author of Matthew was a bald-face liar:

Thirty pieces of silver

According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests "weighed out thirty pieces of silver" to give to Judas. There are two things wrong with this:

a. There were no "pieces of silver" used as currency in Jesus' time - they had gone out of circulation about 300 years before.

b. In Jesus' time, minted coins were used - currency was not "weighed out."

By using phrases that made sense in Zechariah's time but not in Jesus' time Matthew once again gives away the fact that he creates events in his gospel to match "prophecies" he finds in the Old Testament.

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

[Mikeenders]

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

Actually no you DID NOT. Iasked for evidence you provided none then claimed to be stating you were wrong wrong wrong but then added "however" and walked back most of the being wrong you claimed you were admiyying tp - ending with.

" 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. "

To which I would still ask AGAIN - what evidence? You provided NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR THERE BEING ANY PREFERENCE FOR MALE OR FEMALE decendency. SO congratulations. You did a I was wrong but i was right post and tried to slither out of providing anything you claimed.

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?

Sure we have the fact that the early church saw Jesus as the son of god and BY FLESH the descendant of David which he would not be if Mary was not descended from David. Further as already has been shown to you we have Luke saying pretty much point blank that JESUS WAS NOT the real son of Joseph and we have the fact that the early church PURPOSEFULLY EMBRACED two different genealogies which makes the most sense if its looking at mother and father. So all the evedince point to their being at least tow genealogies and voila thats what we have. Thats why the majority consensus of scholars over the centuries (not just modern scholars as you erroneously limit things to) has been that they represent the genealogies of two different people

Your blathering nonsense about Paul and the early church accepting that Jesus was the son of god under one understanding and then violating that understanding by coming up with another reason entirely he was the son of God is just that - blathering nonsense. It violates Occam's razor to say the least that the church would suffer persecution and be ostracized for accepting Jesus as the messiah for one reason and then make up another reason entirely. One thing that these stupid multiple reinvention claims ignores is that the church was spread over a vast geography with people all over the middle east and parts of europe. To say they all huddled in a room and said - okay new game plan we are gong to go with this you never heard before just is not real world. and laughingly improbable.

Its YOU tht would ahve to offer solid proof for sunc an unlikely scenario but instead you joing these crackpot assertions and claim we have to disprove the idiocy

[Mikeenders]

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).

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

Oh my.....let me take a guess. either Gary has not read that text or he thinks the word feet means something else

oh dear oh my

the good alleged doctor not knowing body parts

[Gary]

Actually no you DID NOT. Iasked for evidence you provided none then claimed to be stating you were wrong wrong wrong but then added "however" and walked back most of the being wrong you claimed you were admiyying tp - ending with.

" 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. "

To which I would still ask AGAIN - what evidence? You provided NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR THERE BEING ANY PREFERENCE FOR MALE OR FEMALE decendency. SO congratulations. You did a I was wrong but i was right post and tried to slither out of providing anything you claimed.




Sure we have the fact that the early church saw Jesus as the son of god and BY FLESH the descendant of David which he would not be if Mary was not descended from David. Further as already has been shown to you we have Luke saying pretty much point blank that JESUS WAS NOT the real son of Joseph and we have the fact that the early church PURPOSEFULLY EMBRACED two different genealogies which makes the most sense if its looking at mother and father. So all the evedince point to their being at least tow genealogies and voila thats what we have. Thats why the majority consensus of scholars over the centuries (not just modern scholars as you erroneously limit things to) has been that they represent the genealogies of two different people

Your blathering nonsense about Paul and the early church accepting that Jesus was the son of god under one understanding and then violating that understanding by coming up with another reason entirely he was the son of God is just that - blathering nonsense. It violates Occam's razor to say the least that the church would suffer persecution and be ostracized for accepting Jesus as the messiah for one reason and then make up another reason entirely. One thing that these stupid multiple reinvention claims ignores is that the church was spread over a vast geography with people all over the middle east and parts of europe. To say they all huddled in a room and said - okay new game plan we are gong to go with this you never heard before just is not real world. and laughingly improbable.

Its YOU tht would ahve to offer solid proof for sunc an unlikely scenario but instead you joing these crackpot assertions and claim we have to disprove the idiocy

Paul contradicted Jesus regarding the Law. PAUL is the true founder of Christianity. Jesus would roll over in his (unmarked) grave if he knew what the little Pharisee from Tarsus has done to his teachings:

THE UNCHANGEABLE LAW

According to Matthew 5:18, Jesus said that not the tiniest bit of the Law could be changed. However, in Mark 7:19 Jesus declares that all foods are clean, thereby drastically changing the Law.

The church tries to get around this obvious contradiction by artificially separating the Mosaic Law into the "ceremonial" law and the "moral" law, a separation which would have abhorred the Jews of Jesus' time. The Mark passage and similar ones like Acts 10:9-16 were added to accommodate the teaching of Paul regarding the Law (which was diametrically opposed to the teaching of Jesus on the Law) and to make the gospel palatable to the Gentiles.

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

[Gary]

Oh my.....let me take a guess. either Gary has not read that text or he thinks the word feet means something else

oh dear oh my

the good alleged doctor not knowing body parts

Holy body parts, Batman! Did Jesus give a sign, signs, or no signs??

NO SIGNS, ONE SIGN, OR MANY SIGNS?

At one point the Pharisees come to Jesus and ask him for a sign.

1. In Mark 8:12 Jesus says that "no sign shall be given to this generation."

2. In contradiction to Mark, in Matthew 12:39 Jesus says that only one sign would be given - the sign of Jonah. Jesus says that just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so he will spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Here Jesus makes an incorrect prediction - he only spends two nights in the tomb (Friday and Saturday nights), not three nights.

3. In contradiction to both Mark and Matthew, the gospel of John speaks of many signs that Jesus did:

a. The miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana is called the beginning (or first) of the signs that Jesus did (John 2:11).

b. The healing at Capernaum is the "second sign" (John 4:54).

c. Many people were following Jesus "because they were seeing the signs He was performing" (John 6:2).


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

[Mikeenders]

WHY DID JOHN BAPTIZE JESUS?

John baptized for repentance (Matthew 3:11). Since Jesus was supposedly without sin, he had nothing to repent of. The fact that he was baptized by John has always been an embarrassment to the church. The gospels offer no explanation for Jesus' baptism, apart from the meaningless explanation given in Matthew 3:14-15 "to fulfill all righteousness."

I dunno why but I feel embarassed for Gary after yet another massive untruth

WHY DIDN'T JOHN THE BAPTIST BECOME A FOLLOWER OF JESUS?

Yeah we all had a theory about that one in seminary. Consensus was that being dead puts a crimp in your ability to follow. generally a pair of working legs are required(unless you are watching an episode of the walking dead)

John's first encounter with Jesus was while both of them were still in their mothers' wombs, at which time John, apparently recognizing his Saviour, leaped for joy (Luke 1:44)

Yeah no Ginko back in the day at least in that part of the world. Poor john must of forgot after coming through the birth canal either that or you really don't have xray vision in the womb. Bummer my story idea for a n Xman movie just went south.

Luke 7:18-23 in which the imprisoned John sends two of his disciples to ask Jesus, "Are you the one who is coming, or do we look for someone else?"

Nah....sorry infidels. nothing wrong wanting to make double sure you are right about an important issue especially when you are about to die. Try again

Don' t those guys ever publish anything new??/ I remember that one from like a decade ago. Stale stuff. bring fresh chips

[Gary]

Gary somehow thinks saying spin is an answer.

The Great Commission was fabricated by the Early Church! Here's the proof:

THE GREAT COMMISSION

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus tells the eleven disciples to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

1. This is obviously a later addition to the gospel, for two reasons:

a. It took the church over two hundred years of fighting (sometimes bloody) over the doctrine of the trinity before this baptismal formula came into use. Had it been in the original gospel, there would have been no fighting.

b. In Acts, when people are baptized, they are baptized just in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). Peter says explicitly that they are to "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38).

2. This contradicts Jesus' earlier statement that his message was for the Jews only (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:24). The gospels, and especially Acts, have been edited to play this down, but the contradiction remains. It was the apostle Paul who, against the express wishes of Jesus, extended the gospel (Paul's version) to the gentiles.

Source: see above.

[Gary]

Why does a canonical book of the "inspired" Word of God quote a non-canonical book as if it is the inspired Word of God?? Answer: The author of the Book of Enoch got even more creative with his fabricated science fiction tales than did the author of the Gospel of Matthew, if that is possible, and the later Church decided to "un-inspire" it! How much more do I need to show you, folks, before you realize that the Christian New Testament is a work of man. No god would have anything to do with this sloppily thrown together text.

ENOCH IN THE BOOK OF JUDE

Jude 14 contains a prophecy of Enoch. Thus, if the Book of Jude is the Word of God, then the writings of "Enoch" from which Jude quotes, are also the Word of God. The Book of Enoch was used in the early church until at least the third century - Clement, Irenaeus and Tertullian were familiar with it. However, as church doctrine began to solidify, the Book of Enoch became an embarrassment to the church and in a short period of time it became the Lost Book of Enoch. A complete manuscript of the Book of Enoch was discovered in Ethiopia in 1768. Since then, portions of at least eight separate copies have been found among the Dead Sea scrolls. It is easy to see why the church had to get rid of Enoch - not only does it contain fantastic imagery (some of which was borrowed by the Book of Revelation), but it also contradicts church doctrine on several points (and, since it is obviously the work of several writers, it also contradicts itself).

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

[Gary]

Oh my.....let me take a guess. either Gary has not read that text or he thinks the word feet means something else

oh dear oh my

the good alleged doctor not knowing body parts

More evidence of glaring discrepancies in the fabricated story of the Conversion of Paul, and, Bible translators' hanky-panky with the Greek text to cover them up:

THE APOSTLE PAUL'S CONVERSION

The Book of Acts contains three accounts of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. All of three accounts contradict each other regarding what happened to Paul's fellow travelers.

1. Acts 9:7 says they "stood speechless, hearing the voice..."

2. Acts 22:9 says they "did not hear the voice..."

3. Acts 26:14 says "when we had all fallen to the ground..."

Some translations of the Bible (the New International Version and the New American Standard, for example) try to remove the contradiction in Acts 22:9 by translating the phrase quoted above as "did not understand the voice..." However, the Greek word "akouo" is translated 373 times in the New Testament as "hear," "hears," "hearing" or "heard" and only in Acts 22:9 is it translated as "understand." In fact, it is the same word that is translated as "hearing" in Acts 9:7, quoted above. The word "understand" occurs 52 times in the New Testament, but only in Acts 22:9 is it translated from the Greek word "akouo."

This is an example of Bible translators sacrificing intellectual honesty in an attempt to reconcile conflicting passages in the New Testament.

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

[Gary]

Must I give you more folks before the light goes on in your brains and you realize just how preposterous and silly this ancient tall tale really is??

[Gary]

Let's play the game: When, Where, and How did Jesus call Peter, Andrew, John, and James to be his Disciples?

1. In Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:16-20, Peter and Andrew are casting nets into the sea. Jesus calls out to them and they leave their nets and follow him. Jesus then goes on a little further and sees James and John mending their nets with their father. He calls to them and they leave their father and follow him.

2. In Luke 5:1-11, Jesus asks Peter to take him out in Peter's boat so Jesus can preach to the multitude. James and John are in another boat. When Jesus finishes preaching, he tells Peter how to catch a great quantity of fish (John 21:3-6 incorporates this story in a post- resurrection appearance). After Peter catches the fish, he and James and John are so impressed that after they bring their boats to shore they leave everything and follow Jesus.

3. In John 1:35-42, Andrew hears John the Baptist call Jesus the Lamb of God. Andrew then stays with Jesus for the remainder of the day and then goes to get his brother Peter and brings him to meet Jesus.

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

[Apologiaphoenix]

The Great Commission was fabricated by the Early Church! Here's the proof:

I hear 90% of our Congressmen are also Reptilians!