Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Mikeenders]

Zeitgeist? Dang. I hadn't really been looking at each video.

Okay people. Place your bets. How long before Gary's a mythicist?

If I am reading a mod note on his last post right we might have a while to find out

[Apologiaphoenix]

If I am reading a mod note on his last post right we might have a while to find out

No loss.

[Gary]

Let's take a look at the very first (alleged) Jesus prophecy in the Old Testament:

Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

OMG! That has to be talking about Jesus' mother Mary! OMG!

Hold onto your panties, folks: What is going on in this ancient Hebrew fable? Well, here it is: The Hebrew god, Yahweh, is chewing out a snake. And not just any snake. This snake can talk. Yes, that's right. The snake can talk. But that's not all...the snake can also walk!!! I'm sure we are dealing with a real, historical event, right? (cough, cough).

So Yahweh is really p-o'd at the snake for tricking his little human mini-Hims to eat the fruit from a forbidden fruit tree that Yahweh had just so happened to have placed smack dab in the middle of the little garden he put them in to watch them play for billions of years...or some other very weird reason...why does a perfect god need a human aquarium?

So, Yahweh curses the snake by making it crawl on its belly (but doesn't say anything about its ongoing ability to speak) and curses the woman mini-him by giving her painful labor and curses her husband with hard work.

So what does all that have to do with this alleged Jesus prophecy, you ask? Well...nothing. There is no Jesus prophecy here. Yahweh curses all the offspring of the woman and he curses all the offspring (seed) of the snake. In other words, the offspring of the woman and the offspring of the snake are not going to get along well. Human beings are going to chop off the heads of snakes, and snakes are going to bite the heels of humans.

No Jesus prophecy, here, folks. And if you don't believe me, listen to the good rabbi below regarding this "Jesus prophecy":

[psstein]

Zeitgeist? Dang. I hadn't really been looking at each video.

Okay people. Place your bets. How long before Gary's a mythicist?

I think I put money on that about 50 pages ago.

On the other hand, I don't think Gary is really looking at any of the videos he posts. Seeing as how he hasn't yet had an original thought, it's no surprise.

[Mikeenders]

But that's not all...the snake can also walk!!! I'm sure we are dealing with a real, historical event, right? (cough, cough).

LOL....he couldn't have possibly picked a worse fight than the ability of snakes to walk as a historical event


http://shoebat.com/2015/07/23/for-th...ally-had-legs/

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6246/416

OF course we've know they had legs for awhile

http://news.discovery.com/animals/zo...ion-110207.htm

Which begs the question. How did the Bible writer know snakes used to have legs? Was so sure they wrote it in the torah (cough..cough.....lol)


Poor gary. probably should have stayed banned. Now God is just messin with him

[Apologiaphoenix]

Oh good grief. No. The snake is a representation of a chaos creature in an ancient account of sacred space. The reference to crawling on the belly and eating dust is not saying snakes could once walk, but rather saying that the chaos creature responsible for this action will be placed in a position of shame.

You could just, I don't know, listen to my interview with John Walton on The Lost World of Adam and Eve.

[Gary]

Let's take a look at the very first (alleged) Jesus prophecy in the Old Testament:

Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

OMG! That has to be talking about Jesus' mother Mary! OMG!

Hold onto your panties, folks: What is going on in this ancient Hebrew fable? Well, here it is: The Hebrew god, Yahweh, is chewing out a snake. And not just any snake. This snake can talk. Yes, that's right. The snake can talk. But that's not all...the snake can also walk!!! I'm sure we are dealing with a real, historical event, right? (cough, cough).

So Yahweh is really p-o'd at the snake for tricking his little human mini-Hims to eat the fruit from a forbidden fruit tree that Yahweh had just so happened to have placed smack dab in the middle of the little garden he put them in to watch them play for billions of years...or some other very weird reason...why does a perfect god need a human aquarium?

So, Yahweh curses the snake by making it crawl on its belly (but doesn't say anything about its ongoing ability to speak) and curses the woman mini-him by giving her painful labor and curses her husband with hard work.

So what does all that have to do with this alleged Jesus prophecy, you ask? Well...nothing. There is no Jesus prophecy here. Yahweh curses all the offspring of the woman and he curses all the offspring (seed) of the snake. In other words, the offspring of the woman and the offspring of the snake are not going to get along well. Human beings are going to chop off the heads of snakes, and snakes are going to bite the heels of humans.

No Jesus prophecy, here, folks. And if you don't believe me, listen to the good rabbi below regarding this "Jesus prophecy":[/QUOTE]

[tabibito]

Which begs the question. How did the Bible writer know snakes used to have legs?

[IMG]via Imgflip Meme Maker[/IMG]

[Mikeenders]

Oh good grief. No. The snake is a representation of a chaos creature in an ancient account of sacred space. The reference to crawling on the belly and eating dust is not saying snakes could once walk, but rather saying that the chaos creature responsible for this action will be placed in a position of shame.

Sorry Nick. You can't state that as fact. Gary's going to be shocked but fair is fair. We CANNOT just invoke symbolism wherever we wish and we certainly cannot expect skeptics to buy as fact these conjectures. Yes I know there is a whole lot of ANE comparisons and conjectures regarding Genesis 1 and 2 but frankly I think what some Christians do with Genesis and other passages feed the mouth of skeptics.

If you look at it objectively from the outside you are begging that skeptics accepts things that are not stated in the text and

A) thats not going to happen
B) its a slippery slope which begs the question - why can't I invoke symbolism anywhere I wish

[Mikeenders]

[IMG]via Imgflip Meme Maker[/IMG]

Tab you could put that in any image you wish and in even BIGGER Letters. Its dubious AT BEST that any one several thousand years ago would have identified a legged animal with a snake. Today in much more advances science the identification is made using advanced comparisons and as a matter of fact the last find is even being questioned a bit. In fact given that no one really would have much of an Idea of evolution the idea they would come up wth a story of a snake losing leg is downright curious = Slim and none. without the story the connection would not even be made but oooops that would mean they took the story a bit more literally than supposed by Some here.

So Sorry but the automatic answer - FOSSILS - that the writer was aware of digs and comparative analysis doesn't hold the kind of weight you think it does.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Sorry Nick. You can't state that as fact. Gary's going to be shocked but fair is fair. We CANNOT just invoke symbolism wherever we wish and we certainly cannot expect skeptics to buy as fact these conjectures. Yes I know there is a whole lot of ANE comparisons and conjectures regarding Genesis 1 and 2 but frankly I think what some Christians do with Genesis and other passages feed the mouth of skeptics.

If you look at it objectively from the outside you are begging that skeptics accepts things that are not stated in the text and

A) thats not going to happen
B) its a slippery slope which begs the question - why can't I invoke symbolism anywhere I wish

I don't interpret it that way because I wish to. I do because I think Walton makes a convincing case.

[Mikeenders]

I don't interpret it that way because I wish to. I do because I think Walton makes a convincing case.

Based upon which verse??


and there lies the rub.

[tabibito]

Tab you could put that in any image you wish and in even BIGGER Letters. Its dubious AT BEST that any one several thousand years ago would have identified a legged animal with a snake. Today in much more advances science the identification is made using advanced comparisons and as a matter of fact the last find is even being questioned a bit. In fact given that no one really would have much of an Idea of evolution the idea they would come up wth a story of a snake losing leg is downright curious = Slim and none. without the story the connection would not even be made but oooops that would mean they took the story a bit more literally than supposed by Some here.

So Sorry but the automatic answer - FOSSILS - that the writer was aware of digs and comparative analysis doesn't hold the kind of weight you think it does.

Deh - It was a tongue in cheek comment - not intended to be taken seriously. If we are to go with the idea that Genesis is mythological, it would be easy enough to see how the idea arose. Long tailed lizards look a lot like snakes in body shape - and the arisal of the "Why don't they have legs anymore?" question isn't at all unlikely (and of course, a dreamt up answer to go with it.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Based upon which verse??


and there lies the rub.

Based upon understanding the context of ANE writings.

Does that mean skeptics will believe it? No.

That's not my problem. If they really want to know if something is true, they'll be willing to work for it.

If not, they won't.

[Mikeenders]

Deh - It was a tongue in cheek comment - not intended to be taken seriously. If we are to go with the idea that Genesis is mythological, it would be easy enough to see how the idea arose. Long tailed lizards look a lot like snakes in body shape - and the arisal of the "Why don't they have legs anymore?" question isn't at all unlikely (and of course, a dreamt up answer to go with it.

The internet meme of a silly face and an answer suggests that it should be obvious. In most cases its not tongue in cheek at all . its downright mockery. Meanwhile the idea that there would be any loss rather than another created being similar in form to another (which is all over creation and Genesis just picks this one now confirmed by Science ) is dubious at best and mighty fortuitous. I am not saying its miraculous that there is such a thing. Perhaps it was a good guess but its nowhere as simple, elementary or likely as you are making it out to be. we also are made of the same basic chemical components of Clay/dirt. Is that a lucky guess too?

One thing makes no sense whatsoever. IF you claim Genesis is merely mythological then your arguments against Gary is merely a matter of degree. You are trying to limit the mythological elements of the Bible to a confined space where he extends it to passages you don't. Its the splitting of hairs and distinctions that long term just doesn't work. its one thing to say a few phrases in a passage are meant poetically but saying we can trust a book that has whole sale entire stories made up is hard a sell. How far do we extend this with a straight face. Daniel is made up, Genesis is mythical, some stories are just war time hyperbole

Put them all together and its nto a hard sell because anyone is uneducated but its a hard sell because its illogical to trust such a book.

and for Gary reading - nope its not a hard sell from my stand point because I don't buy the koolaid that its all mythical and the text admits to no such thing.