What the hell are you talking about?
-
Features
Skeptic's Challenge
- Thread starter DLH
- Start date
What the hell are you talking about?
NO!! Shocked! Shocked I am!
Night of the Living Dead
OK, since you acknowledged you were unable to answer my question about Judas, do I get to ask you another question instead?
OK, during the Crucifixion there was an eclipse, an earthquake, and a zombie invasion that evidently went unnoticed by contemporary writers and historians apart from the authors of the Gospels. Actually, Matthew is the only Gospel to talk about the zombies - the other NT writers didn't think them worth mentioning. Nor do the Jewish leaders appear to have noticed the temple curtain being magically torn up.
Now, about these zombies, what happened to them? Did they end up going back to their graves? And the text says they came out of their tombs during the crucifixion but only went into Jerusalem after Jesus's resurrection. Did they just stand around in the graveyard waiting during the three days before the resurrection?
OK, since you acknowledged you were unable to answer my question about Judas, do I get to ask you another question instead?
OK, during the Crucifixion there was an eclipse, an earthquake, and a zombie invasion that evidently went unnoticed by contemporary writers and historians apart from the authors of the Gospels. Actually, Matthew is the only Gospel to talk about the zombies - the other NT writers didn't think them worth mentioning. Nor do the Jewish leaders appear to have noticed the temple curtain being magically torn up.
Now, about these zombies, what happened to them? Did they end up going back to their graves? And the text says they came out of their tombs during the crucifixion but only went into Jerusalem after Jesus's resurrection. Did they just stand around in the graveyard waiting during the three days before the resurrection?
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,300
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
English is clearly not DLH's strong suit.That's Mocked. With an 'M', not an 'Sh'.
You are not going to let that go, are you?
I did that, remember? "Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit 1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: 'Genus matris non vocatur genus ( "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant")' ('Baba bathra,' 110, a)." Commentary on Luke, 1981, page 129."
Did you read the article on my website I linked to? Jesus' Genealogy
That's Mocked. With an 'M', not an 'Sh'.
You guys are ALL fired up, ain't 'ya!?!
Bothered they are. Hates us they do.
Some atheist interpretations vilifying, it seems, the Bible are amusing in that they would take very little research to debunk. One I always hear is the zombie parade at Matthew 27:52-53.
Matthew was the only one to mention dead people emerging from their graves upon Jesus' death. It is assumed that these resurrected dead were walking around.
The omission of the dead people emerging from the graves by the other writers does not, of course, mean anything. Matthew was the first gospel to be written. In De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, Jerome says: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed." So this (Matthew having been the first gospel) might be a reason for the others having not included the dead people emerging from their graves.
Any serious student of the Bible could tell you that at Matthew 27:52-53 the Greek egeiro means simply raised up rather than resurrected back to life, and in addition "they" (meaning the bodies that were walking around) is a pronoun, and in Greek all pronouns have gender; "they" is masculine whereas "bodies" (the bodies that were lifted up) is in the neuter. They are not the same.
Adam Clarke: "It is difficult to account for the transaction mentioned in verses 52 and 53. Some have thought that these two verses have been introduced into the text of Matthew from the gospel of the Nazarenes, others think the simple meaning is this: - by the earthquake several bodies that had been buried were thrown up and exposed to view, and continued above ground till after Christ's resurrection, and were seen by many persons in the city."
Theobald Daechsel's translation: "And tombs opened up, and many corpses of saints laying at rest were lifted up."
Johannes Greber's translation: "Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried there were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city."
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Assumed?
You use English oddly.
It is quoted that they were walking around. From version of The Books purportedly translated by Christain scholars, and popular with people who think they're reading good translations.
It's not exactly an 'assumption' to read what's on a page and repeat it.
You know, if you have an issue with the various translations that say 'they entered the city and appeared to many,' wouldn't your time be better spent preaching the Real Word to the Christains who like to think that their holy book is infallible?
Get all the biblical fans on the same page with what the Books actually says, THEN deliver the truth to the skeptics when the Believers are unanimous?
It seems odd that you're spending this much time improving skeptics' understanding of scripture when so much needs to be done for the Believers....
That's a good question. I've tried. Long ago I discovered that Christians believe what they want to believe. You show them that the Bible doesn't teach the immortal soul, hell, the cross, the trinity, omnipresence, Easter, Christmas, the rapture, all good people go to heaven etc. They don't care.
It took me a long time to realize that atheists are the same. They believe what they want. If they want to believe that the Bible says zombies walking around then when you show them the truth they reject it. We are both people and people believe what they want.
But when I talk with atheists I can say fuck. Well. Up until now. Now I guess I have to say "Intercourse" like the Bible does. It doesn't have the same ring to it. Instead of saying I don't give a rat's ass I have to say I don't give a rodent's rectum, or instead of saying someone is a horses ass I have to say Equestrian anus.
I was, uh . . . educated in public schools in the Bible belt, you know.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
It just seems odd that you're using your preferred translation to sneer at the atheists, and implying that the atheists are the ones who came up with the walking zombie translation.
So mostly you're not explaining dick, you're just here to insult people.
As with many an online apologist.
Only if the Books does, in fact, say that you cannot say 'fuck.'
You never did establish exactly what those verses mean to the use of the word in modern English.
You just seemed to tie the issue up in loopholes and questions and then leave it as if it were complete.
Oh, intercourse the penguin.
Works for me.
Again, you haven't shown that you HAVE to avoid vulgar language.
We just asked how you do it while pretending that you know the ONE AND ONLY way to read scripture.
So, what, now you're saying it DOES say you cannot say 'fuck?' Ass? Semprini?
I explained that, though not in thorough detail with references. I only have so much time.
The Bible says . . .
1. Not to use obscene or abusive speech.
2. That even if something is okay with the Bible you may not want to do it in public if it stumbles newly interested ones or makes belief look bad. That may depend upon culture.
3. That people are of sin, and mess up.
4. That you shouldn't put on a show, like a hypocrite.
5. That if you believe something that is wrong according to the Bible, if you believe it is right, in your heart, that God sees in it's true light, it will be forgiven. That doesn't mean that you can use your beliefs to negate the Bible. It means if you truly believe it is not unrighteous it will be forgiven.
So someone in my position has to weigh all of that, and if I notice someone else abusing those sorts of things in the name of Christ, I have to speak up and tell them, like they should me. And then, being aware, I have to make changes if I see the correction as being a valid issue or concern.
OK, so you adopt the naturalistic explanation (yes, I'm familiar with it) that the "risen" corpses in Matthew 27 stayed dead and were not actually wandering around. The Christian belief in Jesus's resurrection may well have arisen from a similar misunderstanding. However, plenty of pious Christians argue that there actually was a parade of zombies, and those who adopt the naturalistic theory just don't have enough faith in God's power.
I'm curious: since you say you are "not a Christian" but a "Bible-Believer", what exactly is your religious affiliation?
For my next biblical question:
Luke 24 says the resurrected Jesus first appeared to two of his male disciples in Emmaus near Jerusalem and then popped into their house in Jerusalem to have fish and chips with the rest of the disciples. He also orders them to wait in Jerusalem (verse 49).
Matthew 28 on the other hand says that the risen Jesus first appeared to the male disciples on a mountain in Galilee, 500 miles away from Jerusalem.
(John appears to combine both ideas: appearance in locked house in Jerusalem in Chapter 20 followed by subsequent appearance in Galilee in Chapter 21. Although one school of thought says Chapter 21 is a late addition to John's Gospel, similar to the phony resurrection verses at the end of Mark.)
So, where did the resurrected Jesus first appear to his male disciples? On a mountain in Galilee? Or in Emmaus/Jerusalem, 500 miles away? Did Jesus order the disciples to wait in Jerusalem, or did he tell them to go to Galilee?
I have heard arguments that Luke knew of the visit to Galilee but deliberately omitted it for "editorial" reasons, so any alternative explanation would be interesting.
I'm curious: since you say you are "not a Christian" but a "Bible-Believer", what exactly is your religious affiliation?
For my next biblical question:
Luke 24 says the resurrected Jesus first appeared to two of his male disciples in Emmaus near Jerusalem and then popped into their house in Jerusalem to have fish and chips with the rest of the disciples. He also orders them to wait in Jerusalem (verse 49).
Matthew 28 on the other hand says that the risen Jesus first appeared to the male disciples on a mountain in Galilee, 500 miles away from Jerusalem.
(John appears to combine both ideas: appearance in locked house in Jerusalem in Chapter 20 followed by subsequent appearance in Galilee in Chapter 21. Although one school of thought says Chapter 21 is a late addition to John's Gospel, similar to the phony resurrection verses at the end of Mark.)
So, where did the resurrected Jesus first appear to his male disciples? On a mountain in Galilee? Or in Emmaus/Jerusalem, 500 miles away? Did Jesus order the disciples to wait in Jerusalem, or did he tell them to go to Galilee?
I have heard arguments that Luke knew of the visit to Galilee but deliberately omitted it for "editorial" reasons, so any alternative explanation would be interesting.
Last edited:
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,300
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
P.S. That may be one interpretation of the Greek, but unfortunately Jerome also goes on to claim that "Matthew" was translated from a Hebrew original into Greek by some writer whose identity is "uncertain". As this alleged Hebrew original is now lost, how do we know this unknown Greek translator correctly interpreted the Hebrew account of the "risen corpses"?
As J.D. Michaelis noted 200 years ago (I kinda dig these old-time theologians):
Actually, many (if not most) modern scholars would say Jerome was wrong, that Matthew is not the earliest gospel (I personally am agnostic on that point), and that it's an independent and original Greek work - not a translation from Hebrew.
KeepTalking
Code Monkey
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,641
- Location
- St. Louis Metro East
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Why should I when I do not feel that you have adequately addressed my challenge?
Please review my post, I asked for an unbiased source. Wikipedia has this to say about Godet:
Wikipedia said:
Okay, let's say I trust Godet as a source, even though he is not an unbiased source. The Jewish adage is "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant". Unfortunately, we are not talking about Mary's descendants, but rather her ancestors (though I will note that at least one of her descendants, Jesus, is certainly known as her descendant in the Bible). Do you have any reference (hopefully unbiased) that shows a Jewish woman of the 1st century would have her ancestry transferred to her husband when describing that husbands ancestry?
Yes, it simply repeats the assertion that it is not necessary to show an unbroken line of ancestry to prove one's ancestral link to an ancient King, then goes on to mention that three kings were removed from the ancestral line because the first in their line was naughty. My first point still stands, if you want to prove an ancestral link to anyone, you must show the entire unbroken line. Skipping Kings because you don't like them simply won't do. Also, removing these three Kings from the lineage still leaves us with a difference of about a dozen generations, which is still over a 200 year difference between the two lineages.
I reiterate that I do not intend to let this go until you have satisfactorily met my challenge.
Malintent
Veteran Member
No, he'd prefer to just say a god did it by providing inspiration.