Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Apologiaphoenix]

Just for Gary.

spincard.jpg

[Mikeenders]

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

"Spin, spin, spin."

Yes! The irrefutable statement!

I think I will one day just for the fun of it give him back the answer he gave me awhile back - to the effect -


I dunno....working on it....thats a good enough answer


Its kind of all purpose. You can use it anywhere and for anything you can't rebut. I just haven't found anything of Gary's that I needed it for.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Gary is proof that ObamaCare has ruined the medical industry.

[One Bad Pig]

Gary is proof that ObamaCare has ruined the medical industry.

Gary's actions here are making a GREAT case to remain a Christian.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Gary's actions here are making a GREAT case to remain a Christian.

I agree. It's why I hope he keeps posting. He's showing the kind of mindset that leads to his worldview. You have to avoid reading books that disagree with you, rely on the internet, and have no thoughts of your own on the matter.

[One Bad Pig]

I agree. It's why I hope he keeps posting. He's showing the kind of mindset that leads to his worldview. You have to avoid reading books that disagree with you, rely on the internet, and have no thoughts of your own on the matter.

It's not that IMO so much as his transparent condescension, passive-aggressive behavior, and uncritical acceptance of any source which promotes his view. I really, really don't want to be the type of person Gary is showing himself to be here.

[Gary]

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.

Who was examining the "scriptures" daily in 70 AD?

[Gary]

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.

[Gary]

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

Baloney!

How far will you go Tabby to keep this ancient tale believable?

[tabibito]

Just for Gary.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9968[/ATTACH]

This looks like it might be a fun pastime.
Logic 101.jpg

[tabibito]

Baloney!

How far will you go Tabby to keep this ancient tale believable?

There are no doubt scholars who might be able to break what I have posted. You are not among them.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Does Gary know Greek manuscripts were uncials with no spaces?

[tabibito]

Who was examining the "scriptures" daily in 70 AD?

Actually - it was somewhat before that date. Paul and Silas were there, and Paul died in AD 58 or thenabouts ... unless of course you want to posit that Paul's ghost was present in Berea sometime around 12 years after his death.

[tabibito]

Does Gary know Greek manuscripts were uncials with no spaces?

Even if he did, he would ignore the fact if it undermined his argument. (Not that he needs help to do that.)

[Gary]

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.



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.

"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."

It is clear from a simple reading of Paul's epistles that he believed that Jesus was a descendant of David by the usual means of being a descendant of someone: through the flesh, not by an act of union between a ghost and a human virgin. Paul believed that Jesus had a human father, and as was the Jewish tradition, his tribal affiliation came through his human father, and as Joseph was alleged to be of the tribe of Judah, Paul believed Jesus was a descendant of Joseph in the usual fashion. You are forcing the virgin birth, a later invention of the Church, into Paul's writings. The concept of a virgin birth is nowhere to be found in Paul's writings. You and Nick can make up all kinds of rationalizations for why societies in far away lands would already know about the virgin birth, but this is just one of many assumptions that holds your fragile belief system together.

Bottom line: You have no proof that Paul knew anything about a virgin birth.

The fact that the early Church believed that Jesus was the "son of God" proves nothing. The devil is in the details, as they say. What did "son of God" mean to first century Jews? You can read the OT and see where someone is called the "son of God" (Saul, David) and no one in Judaism or Christianity believes that these men were the actual products of conception from God. The early Church fought for decades over the meaning of "son of God" and it wasn't decided for absolute fact until the Council of Chalcedony. I doubt that Jesus believed himself to be the virgin-born Son of God. Jesus never says so anywhere in the Synoptics. Yes, he refers to himself as the "son of God" but in what sense? Only the late Gospel of John, written late in the first century or the early second century has Jesus saying that he is a deity of some type, THE Son of God. I know that you and the other fundamentalists on this site don't agree with this, but there are scholars who say you are wrong, Bart Ehrman, for one.

"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."

Well of course! The two Gospel authors' genealogies were in conflict. The Church had to "harmonize" them. So to sweep under the rug yet another Bible discrepancy, they invented out of thin air the idea that Luke is referring to the genealogy of Jospeh's...wife's...father's...genealogy.

Preposterous! Lies, lies, and more lies by ancient Churchmen!