Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[tabibito]

Much of what has been told us by Gary in the past has been no more than the resurrection of long since destroyed specious arguments.

Logic 101.jpg

[Gary]

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...

Tabby: Do you see just how far you are willing to stretch the facts to make sure your supernatural-based belief system remains intact?

It's very sad.

[Gary]

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.

Yes, Paul was examining the JEWISH scriptures. Prove to me that by 70 AD there were multiple copies of Paul's letters and the Gospel of Mark in every or most Christian churches on the planet.

[tabibito]

Tabby: Do you see just how far you are willing to stretch the facts to make sure your supernatural-based belief system remains intact?

It's very sad.

I don't consider that a particularly compelling argument, to tell the truth. Nor do I find the argument that Luke was identifying Mary with his listed genealogy to be at all likely.

As I said earlier - there's a 50/50 chance that Luke was referring to Mary as the descendant of David in the reference to "the virgin betrothed to Joseph".
Other than that, we have the belief of the Churches during the first generation with regard to Mary's progenitor being David.

[tabibito]

Yes, Paul was examining the JEWISH scriptures. Prove to me that by 70 AD there were multiple copies of Paul's letters and the Gospel of Mark in every or most Christian churches on the planet.

Paul was with the Bereans when THEY were examining the Jewish scriptures. And they concluded that what they were told was valid according to those scriptures. They were after all, Jews, and they were met at the synagogue.

[Mikeenders]

Oh please. You are in no position to make a determination. You know not a drop of Greek. I am not saying thats the proper translation but quoting an English translation with punctuation that does no appear in the original is just ridiculous logic on your part. You are really extending this I don't need to read books thing to the ridiculous level thinking that you can determine the credibility of a greek translation by only reading English.

[Mikeenders]

Does Gary know Greek manuscripts were uncials with no spaces?

Gary doesn't know an Alpha from a Beta and thinks a verb ending is a story that ends with a verb

[Gary]

Much of what has been told us by Gary in the past has been no more than the resurrection of long since destroyed specious arguments.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9970[/ATTACH]

Dear Readers,

Tabby is absolutely correct about this depending upon how you define the word "destroyed".

All the discrepancies that I have presented are not new. Skeptics have been pointing out these errors in the Bible since at least the second century and Christians scholars have been refuting them (or spinning them) for 2,000 years. Christians have a harmonization/spin for every discrepancy that I or any other skeptic can throw at them. The interesting thing is that if you challenge Muslims, Hindus, and Mormons about the discrepancies in their holy books, they, amazingly, have harmonizations for every one of their discrepancies.

So the fact that a religion can refute/harmonize/spin a resolution to an alleged discrepancy is obviously not proof that the holy book in question is the Word of God or that it does not contain errors. So how do we figure out if one or all of the "harmonizable" holy books is true?

I suggest this: Look at what the holy book says about matters of science, archeology, genetics, biology and other sciences and see if the holy book's claims on these subjects hold up. If the literal interpretation of the passages on this topic in the holy book have been repeatedly reinterpreted to keep up with scientific advances, that should tell you just how reliable the holy book is. For instance, if the literal interpretation of a holy books says that the sun revolves around the earth, that is a very good indication that the holy book in question was not written by an all-knowing god, but rather by scientifically ignorant human beings. If a holy book tells you that there were horses in North America long before the Spanish arrived to the New World, you know that this holy book is wrong because modern archeology is absolutely certain that the fossil record shows no evidence of horses before the arrival of the Spanish. When the proponents of these holy books try to reinterpet these passages, suggesting that the sun doesn't really circle the earth, this was just an allegory, or that the word "horse" in the holy book doesn't mean the kind of horse we think of today but another species of animal, chalk these explanations up to spin: The desperate attempt by superstitious people to prop up their belief system, belief systems upon which their entire lives are built upon; belief systems, which if proved false, would devastate them.

[Gary]

I don't consider that a particularly compelling argument, to tell the truth. Nor do I find the argument that Luke was identifying Mary with his listed genealogy to be at all likely.

As I said earlier - there's a 50/50 chance that Luke was referring to Mary as the descendant of David in the reference to "the virgin betrothed to Joseph".
Other than that, we have the belief of the Churches during the first generation with regard to Mary's progenitor being David.

"we have the belief of the Churches during the first generation with regard to Mary's progenitor being David."

Source please? I will stretch the definition of generation to 30 years. Are you telling me that we have evidence in 60-63 AD that the "churches" believed that Mary was a descendant of David?

Source please.

[Gary]

Paul was with the Bereans when THEY were examining the Jewish scriptures. And they concluded that what they were told was valid according to those scriptures. They were after all, Jews, and they were met at the synagogue.

So a few Jews fell for Paul's visionary tale. So what. The overwhelming majority of Jews thought it was hogwash.

[Gary]

Oh please. You are in no position to make a determination. You know not a drop of Greek. I am not saying thats the proper translation but quoting an English translation with punctuation that does no appear in the original is just ridiculous logic on your part. You are really extending this I don't need to read books thing to the ridiculous level thinking that you can determine the credibility of a greek translation by only reading English.

Here is the thing about "scholars" telling laypersons that they can't really know what the Bible says unless the speak Greek and Hebrew: Pure horse crap.

If a layperson wants to know the consensus position of scholars and translators regarding the translation of ANY passage in the Christian New Testament, all he or she has to do is get out a minimum of THREE of the most trusted English versions of the Bible, compare the passage in question, and if there is no disagreement (which there will not be a very high percentage of the time), the layperson can be very confidant that the Bible they are reading has translated the passage correctly.

The idea that only Greek speaking scholars can know what the Bible really says is arrogant nonsense. If this concept is true, lay Christians should toss their Bibles in the trash and just rely on "scholars" to spoon feed them the REAL meaning of the Bible. This is nothing more than the arrogance of Churchmen. We fought a Thirty Years War to end that kind of nonsense, giving the Bible to the common man.

[tabibito]

"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.

There you see - you yourself have said it. The early church believed that Jesus was descended from David, and that Joseph was not his father. The obvious conclusion is that the early Churches considered Mary to be descended from David ... What were you saying about face-palming?

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."

and yet - they believed that Jesus was a descendant of David - a fact to which you have already assented.

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.

Well, as to the last part you would be right. But with regard to the first part ... Paul quite clearly stated that Jesus was the expected "Son of God".

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.

Piffle. Paul believed the messianic prophecies as they were understood by the Jews of the first century, not the messianic prophecies as they are understood by modern Jews.

The concept of a virgin birth is nowhere to be found in Paul's writings.

I wouldn't expect the letters, which are concerned with conduct of then current church affairs to address the issue, no more would I expect those letters to address issues in China at the time. It would have been OFF TOPIC.

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.

If the Bible proved to be entirely incorrect in every detail it records, it would not affect my belief in the Christian God in the slightest

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

Would I care if he didn't? Your problem in debate with me is twofold: I am interested in making sure that I do not misunderstand the Biblical record. What it actually says - and what ambiguities might exist - are far more important than what I want to believe it says. You, by contrast, are so focussed on what you want to believe about the Bible that you will fall for any criticism raised, regardless of how specious that criticism might be. Your prediliction makes you as gullible with regard to the Bible as any cultist anywhere.

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?

Less compelling than you think. Their concept of the Son of Man is known.

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.

Why would I think that? However, Messianic prophecy (as it was understood by the first century Jews) declares that God himself will be the messiah. Your entire argument misses the key point here. That is why, even today, the Jewish Encyclopaedia records Jesus as an Egypt trained sorcerer, born of an illicit relationship between Mary and a Roman soldier. The story was circulated as an anti-Christian-teachings propaganda. The concept of the virgin birth wasn't ridiculed by the Jewish establishment of the time - it was contradicted. Had they not believed that the Christ would be born of a virgin, their response to the story would have been the same as yours.

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.

Odd - he thought of himself as the messiah.

Jesus never says so anywhere in the Synoptics. Yes, he refers to himself as the "son of God" but in what sense?

He also referred to himself as the Son of Man - there being no doubt about the significance of that term.

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.

WRONG! The epistles, and not just Paul's, were written during the second third of the first century.

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.

Bart Ehrman?? Bart Ehrman??? Nope, doesn't even rate as a blip on the scholarship radar. His declamation that the whole thing about Jesus being divine only crystallized at the behest of the Roman Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 is proof enough of that fact.

"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."

Not significant when you think about it.

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.

I'm inclined to agree.

[Gary]

There you see - you yourself have said it. The early church believed that Jesus was descended from David, and that Joseph was not his father. The obvious conclusion is that the early Churches considered Mary to be descended from David ... What were you saying about face-palming?

and yet - they believed that Jesus was a descendant of David - a fact to which you have already assented.

Well, as to the last part you would be right. But with regard to the first part ... Paul quite clearly stated that Jesus was the expected "Son of God". Piffle. Paul believed the messianic prophecies as they were understood by the Jews of the first century, not the messianic prophecies as they are understood by modern Jews.
I wouldn't expect the letters, which are concerned with conduct of then current church affairs to address the issue, no more would I expect those letters to address issues in China at the time. It would have been OFF TOPIC.
If the Bible proved to be entirely incorrect in every detail it records, it would not affect my belief in the Christian God in the slightest

Would I care if he didn't? Your problem in debate with me is twofold: I am interested in making sure that I do not misunderstand the Biblical record. What it actually says - and what ambiguities might exist - are far more important than what I want to believe it says. You, by contrast, are so focussed on what you want to believe about the Bible that you will fall for any criticism raised, regardless of how specious that criticism might be. Your prediliction makes you as gullible with regard to the Bible as any cultist anywhere.

Less compelling than you think. Their concept of the Son of Man is known.
Why would I think that? However, Messianic prophecy (as it was understood by the first century Jews) declares that God himself will be the messiah. Your entire argument misses the key point here. That is why, even today, the Jewish Encyclopaedia records Jesus as an Egypt trained sorcerer, born of an illicit relationship between Mary and a Roman soldier. The story was circulated as an anti-Christian-teachings propaganda. The concept of the virgin birth wasn't ridiculed by the Jewish establishment of the time - it was contradicted. Had they not believed that the Christ would be born of a virgin, their response to the story would have been the same as yours.
Odd - he thought of himself as the messiah.
He also referred to himself as the Son of Man - there being no doubt about the significance of that term.
WRONG! The epistles, and not just Paul's, were written during the second third of the first century.
Bart Ehrman?? Bart Ehrman??? Nope, doesn't even rate as a blip on the scholarship radar. His declamation that the whole thing about Jesus being divine only crystallized at the behest of the Roman Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 is proof enough of that fact.

Not significant when you think about it.

I'm inclined to agree.

"Messianic prophecy (as it was understood by the first century Jews) declares that God himself will be the messiah"

That is the biggest load of crap I have seen yet on this thread. Please show me a source that the majority of NT scholars agree with the outrageous statement. I certainly hope that Nick and Stein will tell you how ridiculous this statement is.

[tabibito]

You have as much difficulty dealing with fact as you do with exercising civility.

[Gary]

Let's look at a genetic question involving the Bible. Imagine this: a couple million Hebrew slaves live among the Egyptians, as their slaves, for a few hundred years. What are the chances that during those few hundreds years, Egyptians are going to take "privileges" with their Hebrew female slaves?

The Old Testament states that one and a half to two million Hebrews were held as slaves in Egypt for four centuries until freed by God and Moses. Why do recent DNA studies reveal that modern Jews are related to Druze, Syrians, and Cypriots, but no mention of the Egyptians? Is it really possible for hundreds of thousands of Hebrews to live among Egyptians as their "property" for four hundred years and not have considerable in-breeding of the two peoples?

Copied from the Jewish website: http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48937817.html

Conclusion: The Exodus is a fable.