Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mikeenders
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikeenders
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary
    replied
    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    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
    Last edited by Gary; 09-22-2015, 08:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apologiaphoenix
    replied
    Gary somehow thinks saying spin is an answer.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X