Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Mikeenders]

Kirk: Scotty we need more copy and paste......IF .....we ...can................. just.....put up................ enough....weak skeptic articles...we might be able to break out of the containment field

Scotty: ay captian i'm giving it all i've got but the engines were not meant for all this mental garbage

Bones: darn it Jim. I'm a doctor and I know this is a load of hueey. No one will ever buy it

SPock: the doctor has a point captain. Only the weakest of minds would buy into the idea that he who puts up the most articles win. The minds of the many outweigh the minds of the Gary.

Kirk: DRINK KHAN!!!! DRINK!!!!

[Mikeenders]

I hear 90% of our Congressmen are also Reptilians!

Now theres a claim with some actual evidence

[Apologiaphoenix]

I just find I'm kind of breezing through them. Same old nonsense and I find better in skeptical books written by scholars.

[Mikeenders]

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

HAHAHAHAHAHA when are they going to retire that one???? Classic claiming meetings and calling as the same thing from the 80s. We should thank Gary for this walk down memory lane of the failed claims of skeptic sites.

[tabibito]

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?

A natural expectation arising from a text will not necessarily be the correct interpretation. The texts that you have cited don't even say that he will be a descendant of David, or of Jesse, they say no more than the messiah will come from a descendant of Jesse and David. That is a strictly literal reading of the scripture - a process that makes it possible to sift through subtleties. Instead of reading "spring from the root of Jesse" being taken to mean "will be descended from Jesse", read what the verse actually says.

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.

Even taking "Mary is not mentioned in the genealogies" as valid, what do you have - Even if descendancy could not carry through the female line - could a woman be a descendant of David? Of course she could.

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.

In point of fact, the text itself is ambiguous. Reading the possible alternative interpretations in turn would give on the one hand the interpretation that Joseph was the nominated descendant of David, and on the other, that Mary was the descendant of David. There is no way to determine from the internal evidence which of the readings would be valid: "Mary betrothed to Joseph, a descendant of David." and "Mary, betrothed to Joseph, a descendant of David." by no means say the same thing. However, we do know that very early Christian belief was ... Mary was descended from David. Basing a determination on all available information is kind of recommended in any enquiry.

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.

On the contrary - it is the criticisms that are based on maybes, and interpretations of the text that are sometimes possible when taken individually, but the sum for which, when all available information is taken into account, makes those individual interpretations unlikely in the extreme.

[Christianbookworm]

Considering that there's about 1,000 years between David and Jesus, it would be pretty easy for anyone from the tribe of Judah at that time to have David as one of his ancestors. So...

[tabibito]

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

The book of Enoch has been known and cited since 200 BC. but according to your "expert" it borrowed from the book of Revelation, written at least 250 years after the terminus ad quem for authorship of the book of Enoch. Moreover, not all churches have removed the book of Enoch from the canon.

[Mikeenders]

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."

You got to love it when skeptics who know nothing of the language or translation make such silly observations

You never interpret a word by how often it is translated into another word (how would you and could you know if you were doing an original translation yourself??). You ALWAYS determine the meaning of a word by how it is USED. The word can be translated as Hear and it means to actually listen and not just pick up the sound. Doesn't have to be translated into a different word. The meaning of the word hear has various nuances by itself

Its the old parent thing to the child - "did you hear me?"

Of course the child heard the parent since he/she was standing right in front of them but even though the same word is used we all know that that is not what is meant.

So many translations (unlike what is claimed in this poor piece ) do translate as hear and not understand but sometimes the words hear really does mean to listen and understand. Its still translated hear but that is another real meaning of the word and its used countless times in both ways in the NT

Sorry gary - another one bites the dust. Get a copy of strongs and read through and you'll see HEAR being used in various ways even when translated as HEAR.

[rogue06]

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

As already noted your claim that Enoch borrowed from Revelation is asinine. But more to the point just because Jude quotes Enoch does not make the latter Scripture. For instance several sources are quoted by name in the Old Testament such as the Book of Jashar in both Joshua 10:12-13 and II Samuel 1:18-27. In fact it is cited authoritatively in both cases and in the latter case a long section is directly quoted but it is still not Scripture.

Several others are cited as well including but not limited to the Book of the Wars of the Lord in Numbers 21:14, and in I Chronicles 29:29 the Book of Samuel the Seer, Book of Nathan the Prophet, and the Book of Gad the Seer are all cited.

Likewise, on Mars' Hill Paul quotes the Greek poet Aratus' Phaenomena in Acts 17:28, Menander's Thais in I Corinthians 15:33 and, in Titus 1:12, "One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own" (identified as Epimenides by Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata). Further when Paul refers to kicking against the pricks or goads in Acts 26:14 that term comes from Aeschylus' Agamemnon.

Are you proposing that Christians should therefore consider Phaenomena, Thais, Agamemnon and whichever of Epimenides' works as part of the Bible?

[Gary]

Notice that no one has given any evidence that Mary was a descendant of King David. Without this evidence, your entire house of cards comes crashing down. I don't have to prove any other point I have presented because if you can't provide evidence that Jesus was an eligible candidate for being the Messiah, Jesus was a fraud, proving that all your supernatural claims were also frauds.

And please don't give me the pathetic, ignorant rationalization that every Jew in Jesus day was a descendant of David.

[tabibito]

Notice that no one has given any evidence that Mary was a descendant of King David. Without this evidence, your entire house of cards comes crashing down. I don't have to prove any other point I have presented because if you can't provide evidence that Jesus was an eligible candidate for being the Messiah, Jesus was a fraud, proving that all your supernatural claims were also frauds.

And please don't give me the pathetic, ignorant rationalization that every Jew in Jesus day was a descendant of David.

Thus spake Gary: "The Bible doesn't list the genealogy of Mary - ergo the Bible is wrong when it refers to Jesus of Nazareth being the Messiah."

Does Gary cite anything by way of evidence to support his contention that Mary was not descended from David?
The fact that people examined the scriptures daily to determine whether Jesus was the Christ and found that he was would be kind of convincing for anyone who allowed reason to direct his opinions.

By contrast, we have a possible statement that Mary was descended from David in Luke 1:27. Admittedly tenuous, but possible nonetheless.

[tabibito]

The original manuscript record of Luke 1:26-27 as it would appear had it been entered in a computer.
ΕΝΔΕΤΩΜΗΝΙΤΩΕΚΤΩΑΠΕΣΤΑΛΗΟΑΓΓΕΛΟΣΓΑΒΡΙΗΛΑΠΟΤΟΥΘΕΟΥΕ ΙΣΠΟΛΙΝΤΗΣΓΑΛΙΛΑΙΑΣΗΟΝΟΜΑΝΑΖΑΡΕΘΠΡΟΣΠΑΡΘΕΝΟΝΕΜΝΗΣΤ ΕΥΜΕΝΗΝΑΝΔΡΙΩΟΝΟΜΑΙΩΣΗΦΕΞ

[Mikeenders]

Notice that no one has given any evidence that Mary was a descendant of King David.

Lies lies and more lies. You have been told the following by me before

The early church including Paul identifies Jesus as descendant of David by Flesh. Since the early church also gives indication they believed Jesus was the son of god which implies a virgin birth thats all we need to face palm your assertions. Further the Gospels INCLUDING THE SAME LUKE YOU HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO makes it very clear that Joseph was NOT the real father of Jesus so the existence of two different genealogies has been considered by many Biblical scholars if not most through the ages as being the genealogies of two different people. its only logical since Luke tells us JOseph is not Jesus' real but adopted son.

Its not hard Gary. Its called reading and applying logic even when it does't support your viewpoint. Is a requirement of intellectual honesty that you do the work and listen to both sides.

It should tell you something that every single copy and paste you did in the last 24 hours is riddled with holes and errors. Thats what happens when you only read from one side of an issue. its great for confirming your own bias but when you get out of your little biased world then you hit a brick wall.

And please don't give me the pathetic, ignorant rationalization that every Jew in Jesus day was a descendant of David.

NO one has. Thats just once again your pathetic reading abilities. What you were told is that the odds were not too high against someone being a descendant of David. this is where it helps to get off of ones rumpus and actually read about the culture in question. Jews routinely married within their own tribe/extended family. Not only are the odds high based upon centuries of this practice but the odds are modestly good that mary was distantly related to Joseph and their genealogies would cross in several time periods. In other words the odds are fairly good one of the reasons Mary was marrying Joseph was because of a distant family relationship. You see this practice in the arranged marriage of Isaac clear as day.

The existence of two geneaologies being accepted by the church is actually exactly what we would expect to see in a virgin birth. Legally Joseph could not be denied his adoption rights and neither should he be after having to live with decades of rumors and taking Jesus as his own. Almost every early mention of Jesus's pedigree in Jewish sources confirms that Jesus was not considered to be Josephs son by flesh. Your claim tht the church originally identified Joseph as the real father of Jesus but changed it is asinine when you consider they would have to convince the opposing Jews to come up with derogatory writings to confirm he was not the legit son of Joseph.

In short as usual your assertions are riddled with holes and logical errors.

[Apologiaphoenix]

ooooh! I know! Let's give a Gary answer to his claim of no evidence!

"Spin, spin, spin."

Yes! The irrefutable statement!

[Christianbookworm]

Do we need the see 'n say again?