Christian questions

[Vympel]

As for donkey business, let's look at the verses in question:

Matt 21:7
They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.

Okay, first off, the disciples brought a domesticated ass and a young male horse. Then the disciples put their cloaks on the animals. Then Jesus sat on "them." What is "them"? Does it necessarily refer to the animals? Maybe Jesus sat on the cloaks, which is referred to by the pronoun "them." It appears as if the main animal were the colt, and the ass were brought along perhaps to keep the young male horse (by definition of colt) from acting.... like a young male horse.

Keener writes, the colt "might [have] require[d] the mother's presence to keep it calm amid shouting crowds".

*Rolling on the floor laughing*

Ah the wacky world of aplogetic intellectual acrobatics continues!

[Vympel]

To refute this ridiculous 'argument'

1- Mark, Luke and John all say it was one animal- because they understood Zechariah:

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9)

A Hebrew parallelism is a repetition for emphasis or clarification, and they are in abundance in the Old Testament. Obviously, Matthew failed to recognize the parallelism- Mark Luke and John had no such problems.

Really WERE two animals?! Apologetic bullshit. Only Matthew among the four gospel writers mentioned the “two” animals in Zechariah’s story. Is it then just a coincidence that only Matthew among them had Jesus fetch two animals from the village, and only Matthew had Jesus enter Jerusalem with two animals?

[The Apologist]

As regards Mithraism - http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp070.asp

As regards donkeys - http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:o3 ... n&ie=UTF-8

He was writing to promote his religion.

And how does this support the idea that John was writing for his own gain?

Jesus was not called "Immanuel", except just once, by Matthew.

http://www.carm.org/questions/jesus_name.htm

The child referred to in Isaiah 6 was apparently born two chapters later.

I do not find it so apparent. Why do you?

The word "ha-almah" normally means "young woman", not "virgin".

http://www.carm.org/diff/Isaiah7_14.htm

The word "harah" is past tense, not future tense, and means "conceived".

Then why is it translated as the future tense?

[Gricksigger]

All right, the old genealogy thing.

One is for Joseph, one is for Mary.

After David, Luke goes with Nathan, the ancestor of Mary, and Matthew goes with Solomon, the ancestor of Joseph.

Why did one go with Mary? Because Jesus had no actual biological human father. Why did one go with Joseph? Because Jesus was counted under Joseph by Hebrew tradition (the "legal" line.)

These passages obviously had differing intentions. They even go in opposite directions (i.e., son of... son of... son of versus father of... father of... father of...).

Sure, the Bible (or the Gospels, at least) was/were written "[so] that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31)

Or, as Luke says to open up his Gospel, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Do you disregard accounts of slavery that are one-sided? If you did, we'd have virtually no information about slavery. As long as the authors have nothing to personally gain by writing false accounts, there's no real reason to think that the Gospel accounts are meant to decieve or not meant to be factually true. And indeed the writers of the Gospels had nothing to gain.

All right now. What did the Gospel writers stand to gain from writing the Gospels? The Gospel stood in stark contrast and contradiction to the social, religious, etc. customs. It was dangerous to propagate a new religion like Christianity.

Was the Gospel attractive to the Jews? No. It was against the Jewish expectations of the Messiah and put greatly less stress on the Law, and it virtually called the Sanhedrin murderers. To the uncivilized? No, Christianity allows no room for more than one God or worship of those other than the single triune God. To Romans? No, they could not comprehend a spiritual, non-physical/earthly kingdom. So "from none of these sides coulud the Christians expect protection" (-William Lane Craig.) Furthermore, if the Gospel writers were liars, then why did they (all but 1 of the disciples) indeed die for the Gospel?

[Vympel]

As regards donkeys -

Apologetic nonsense- "he sat on the cloaks"- yeah, that'll fix it. Of course Matthew Luke and John are hand-waved by saying "oh they were focusing on just one animal because that's the one Jesus sat on"- fucking morons. They don't even know what a Hebrew parallelism is.

PS- If you can understand the arguments, you can post them here yourself.

And how does this support the idea that John was writing for his own gain?

I didn't say that. It's irrelevant, because it still makes his biased- whether it was for his 'personal' gain or for the gain of his religion.

http://www.carm.org/questions/jesus_name.htm

A total non-answer- if you even UNDERSTOOD what they were saying on this link, post their argument yourself! Where is he called Immanuel? Answer- nowhere. The intellectual bankruptcy of apologetics is put on full display- they make everything obscure and obtuse in an attempt to save their ridiculous inerrancy doctrine.

I do not find it so apparent. Why do you?

Ah, I see your intellectual blinders are firmly down now. Do you plan on sticking your fingers in your ear and saying la la la la too?

http://www.carm.org/diff/Isaiah7_14.htm

Why would the Isaiah choose to use the word almah and not bethulah? It was probably because he wanted to demonstrate that the virgin would also be a young woman. Is it still a prophecy? Of course.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh I see now. To save our inerrancy doctrine, we will say that the word that means young woman also means virgin, because Isaiah wanted to demonstrate that she would be a young woman AND a virgin- Even though he doesn't use the word virgin. Makes PERFECT sense

Then why is it translated as the future tense?

Because the translation where its done in future tense is incorrect.

[Gricksigger]

As to the donkey thing again...

The colt was more important. Mark just mentioned the detiails (i.e., the other animal) as well.

[data_link]

"Do you disregard accounts of slavery that are one-sided? If you did, we'd have virtually no information about slavery. As long as the authors have nothing to personally gain by writing false accounts, there's no real reason to think that the Gospel accounts are meant to decieve or not meant to be factually true. And indeed the writers of the Gospels had nothing to gain. "

That's nice. And you don't consider the fact that the lack of personal gain nessecarily translates to a lack of political gain?

BUY A FUCKING CLUE, moron. People trying to support a political purpose will gladly shun logical debate, omit important details, and yes, even contrive facts completely in order to support their cause. Does the fact that they gain nothing personally mean that they aren't biased? FUCK NO! By that logic, DarkStar is a rational debater since he doesn't have anything to gain by proving that Star Trek is superior to Star Wars.

[Gricksigger]

You really think Matthew was so dense as to think that Zechariah meant 2 different animals that were sat upon?

[Gricksigger]

Apologetic nonsense- "he sat on the cloaks"- yeah, that'll fix it. Of course Matthew Luke and John are hand-waved by saying "oh they were focusing on just one animal because that's the one Jesus sat on"- .... morons. They don't even know what a Hebrew parallelism is.

Why won't that fix it? And what's wrong with focusing on important parts versus having more detail?

If I were to say that I danced on December 1st, and another person said that I danced with 900 other people on December 1st, would you have a problem with that?

[Gricksigger]

By that logic, DarkStar is a rational debater since he doesn't have anything to gain by proving that Star Trek is superior to Star Wars.

Nah, that's not what I was saying. But many people say "The Evangelists obviously were trying to accomplish something by writing the Gospels. So we cannot trust them." It is this I am disagreeing with.

[Vympel]

What do the Greek New Testament Gospels have to do with Hebrew parallelism?

You really think Matthew was so dense as to think that Zechariah meant 2 different animals that were sat upon?

What the hell are you talking about?

Yes, he was, considering that Luke, John and Mark weren't as dense. The Old Testament is filled with such parallelisms- Matthew didn't understand them, and so put two animals there. The assertion that the other three writers simply left out the second animal is most amusing.

[Gricksigger]

That's nice. And you don't consider the fact that the lack of personal gain nessecarily translates to a lack of political gain?

I fail to see what you mean here.

[Vympel]

All right, the old genealogy thing.

One is for Joseph, one is for Mary.

More apologetic nonsense based solely on wishful thinking and a predetermined belief that everything in the Bible must be true.

Jesus' genealogy is allegedly traced through Joseph in Matthew and Mary in Luke. Unfortunately for them, the shortcomings in their rationalization are equally simple:

1: Mary's name is nowhere to be found in Luke's genealogy. Everybody's name is mentioned but hers. Imagine a genealogy in which every name is mentioned but that of the person whose lineage is being traced!

2: There is no genealogical record of any woman in the entire Bible. Are we to believe Mary is an exception?

3: Joseph's name is mentioned in Luke's genealogy so one can reasonably conclude that it's his lineage, not Mary's.

4: According to OT prophecy, the Messiah would be a physical descendant of David. Mary appears to have been from the house of Levi, not David, since her cousin, Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) was a daughter of Aaron (Luke 1:5), i.e., from the house of Levi. If Mary was from the house of Aaron, how could either genealogy be hers since they relate David's lineage? On the other hand, Luke 1:27 and 2:4 show Joseph was of Davidic descent.

The attempt to attribute Luke's genealogy to Mary is one of the more transparent subterfuges employed by dishonest apologists. Desperation set in because they just couldn't think of any other rationalization.

All right now. What did the Gospel writers stand to gain from writing the Gospels? The Gospel stood in stark contrast and contradiction to the social, religious, etc. customs. It was dangerous to propagate a new religion like Christianity.

Was the Gospel attractive to the Jews? No. It was against the Jewish expectations of the Messiah and put greatly less stress on the Law, and it virtually called the Sanhedrin murderers. To the uncivilized? No, Christianity allows no room for more than one God or worship of those other than the single triune God. To Romans? No, they could not comprehend a spiritual, non-physical/earthly kingdom. So "from none of these sides coulud the Christians expect protection" (-William Lane Craig.) Furthermore, if the Gospel writers were liars, then why did they (all but 1 of the disciples) indeed die for the Gospel?

What did Heaven's Gate have to gain from killing themselves. QED.

[Vympel]

Why won't that fix it? And what's wrong with focusing on important parts versus having more detail?

If I were to say that I danced on December 1st, and another person said that I danced with 900 other people on December 1st, would you have a problem with that?

Because it exposes the apologetic mindset for the farce that it is. As long as they can propose an alternate rationalization, no matter how unlikely, they think the inerrancy doctrine has been 'saved'. They can't think logically. Tell me, in Zecharia did the King have two animals with him?

Here's some examples of OT repetition

And there came two angels to Sodom…But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom (the men of Sodom- or are you going to say that it was the men of Sodom and some other city too?)

Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said (repetition)

the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. (my son, Isaac)

And they said, We saw certainly that the LORD was with thee: and we said, Let there be now an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee (repetition)

I can keep going if you like.

[data_link]

By that logic, DarkStar is a rational debater since he doesn't have anything to gain by proving that Star Trek is superior to Star Wars.

Nah, that's not what I was saying. But many people say "The Evangelists obviously were trying to accomplish something by writing the Gospels. So we cannot trust them." It is this I am disagreeing with.

And what part of the fact that they were trying to accomplish something - specifially, to promote Christianity - do you not understand?

[Darth Wong]

It's not so much their obvious motives or biases as the simple fact that literary stories should never be confused with historical records. The Bible is a bunch of stories. It is NOT a dispassionate record of events.

Bible apologists treat it as the latter when pretending that it's "evidence", or the former when defending it against criticism of its factual accuracy.

Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's either a dispassionate and numerically/factually accurate historical record (which it isn't) or it's a literary story which was never meant to be historically accurate and whose authors were mostly ghost-writing hearsay and legends anyway.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

I'd just like to step in for amoment and ask... What's an apologist? And what's a fundamentalist? I'd just like to know teh exact definitions, thanks.

[Durandal]

As regards Mithraism - http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp070.asp

Surely you can do better than this. No shit, eh? A website trying to convince people to convert to Christianity says that Christianity didn't rip off of Mithraism, and we're going to accept it, even though it flies in the face of historical record and objective anthropological evidence?

Try again.

[The Apologist]

Apologetic nonsense- "he sat on the cloaks"- yeah, that'll fix it. Of course Matthew Luke and John are hand-waved by saying "oh they were focusing on just one animal because that's the one Jesus sat on"- fucking morons. They don't even know what a Hebrew parallelism is.

How, exactly, do you infer that?

And how do you know what a "Hebrew parallelism" is?

Where is he called Immanuel? Answer- nowhere.

Oh really? I have seen, read, and heard plenty of people call Him "Immanuel." I might have even done it myself once or twice.

Ah, I see your intellectual blinders are firmly down now. Do you plan on sticking your fingers in your ear and saying la la la la too?

Well then, perhaps you can explain to me how the birth of this "Immanuel" in chapter 8 is so apparent?

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh I see now. To save our inerrancy doctrine, we will say that the word that means young woman also means virgin, because Isaiah wanted to demonstrate that she would be a young woman AND a virgin- Even though he doesn't use the word virgin. Makes PERFECT sense

What does this have to do with inerrancy? I fail to see how it is pertinent thereto, but perhaps you do not.

Anyway, rather than making an utter fool of yourself, you could present a counter-argument, if you find it so absurd.

Because the translation where its done in future tense is incorrect.

How about some evidential support here? I want you to show me not only that the word harah is in the past tense, but also that it is indeed the word used in the verse.

Oh, and posting links saves time.

[Durandal]

By the way, an apologist is someone who slavishly defends something. The first apologists were Christians back in Rome who refused to bow to Roman gods, as I recall.

As such, we have this moron. <points up>

[Darth Wong]

I'd just like to step in for amoment and ask... What's an apologist? And what's a fundamentalist? I'd just like to know teh exact definitions, thanks.

A fundamentalist is an idiot who thinks that the Bible is completely, literally, word-for-word true. Among his beliefs are:

1. We supposedly have "souls" but animals don't.
2. The Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
3. If you don't worship him, God will mercilessly torture you for all eternity in Hell with no chance for reprieve ... but he loves you (normal Christians like to refer to these guys as "fire and brimstone" types).
4. Scientists are all engaged in a global conspiracy of silence and lies.
5. Secular = evil.
6. Muslim = evil.
7. Buddhist = evil.
8. Taoist = evil.
9. Shintoist = evil.
10. Hare Krishna = evil.
11. Catholics = evil (their Bible is altered).
12. Moderate Christians = evil.
13. Liberal Christians = even more evil.
14. Gays = evil.
15. Lesbians = evil.
16. Atheists = evil
17. Humanists = evil.
18. Hindus = evil.
19. Pagans = evil.
20. Wiccans = evil.
21. Earth-mother religions = evil.
22. Native spirit religions = evil.
23. Harry Potter = evil (witchcraft).
24. Sexual freedom/experimentation/enjoyment = evil.
25. Foul language = evil (but violence = OK).
26. Nudity = evil.
27. Feminism = evil.

An apologist is a guy who makes excuses for the Bible's many logical, factual, scientific, and moral faults. The typical apologist is a master of circular reasoning, and is generally incapable of removing his head from his ass long enough to recognize that you cannot justify the Bible's narrative slant by assuming that it is accurate.

[The Apologist]

Surely you can do better than this. No shit, eh? A website trying to convince people to convert to Christianity says that Christianity didn't rip off of Mithraism, and we're going to accept it, even though it flies in the face of historical record and objective anthropological evidence?

Try again.

Would this be the historical record and objective anthropological evidence that you yourself have personally witnessed in the field, investigated with your own hands, and verified as irrefutably and undeniably true by logical, scientific means with your own pure and unbiased reasoning abilities?

Or is it the historical record and objective anthropological evidence that some stranger with a lab coat told you all about?

And what part of the fact that they were trying to accomplish something - specifially, to promote Christianity - do you not understand?

The part where this means that they were seeking their own personal gain outside their religion.

What did Heaven's Gate have to gain from killing themselves. QED.

"Heaven," of course. Are you really so uninformed?

[Darth Wong]

Would this be the historical record and objective anthropological evidence that you yourself have personally witnessed in the field, investigated with your own hands, and verified as irrefutably and undeniably true by logical, scientific means with your own pure and unbiased reasoning abilities?

Strawman distortion. By that pointlessly extreme standard, you cannot state with any certainty that the Roman Empire existed at all. One need not necessarily adopt a false dilemma between blindly accepting shitty-quality historical sources and refusing to accept anything but personal first-hand observation.

Or is it the historical record and objective anthropological evidence that some stranger with a lab coat told you all about?

Much like the strangers in lab coats who tell us that water is two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Do you smirk and disbelieve them too?

What did Heaven's Gate have to gain from killing themselves. QED.

"Heaven," of course. Are you really so uninformed?

Which doesn't help your cause, does it? More evidence that strong belief in the afterlife leads one to devalue this life.

[Vympel]

How, exactly, do you infer that?

And how do you know what a "Hebrew parallelism" is?

You misunderstand. The writers of Mark, Luke and John weren't nearly as stupid as Matthew. It's the apologists who don't even know what a parallelism is who are the stupid ones. I have already posted examples of other Old Testament repetitions.

Oh really? I have seen, read, and heard plenty of people call Him "Immanuel." I might have even done it myself once or twice.

IN THE BIBLE, genius- answer- nowhere.

Well then, perhaps you can explain to me how the birth of this "Immanuel" in chapter 8 is so apparent?

The young woman has conceived and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel. Before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." (Isaiah 7:14-16)

And she conceived and gave birth to a son. Before the boy knows how to say My father or My mother, the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off ......O Immanuel."

Happy now? You are engaging in the common tactic of demanding proof of everything as a delay tactic.

What does this have to do with inerrancy? I fail to see how it is pertinent thereto, but perhaps you do not.

Anyway, rather than making an utter fool of yourself, you could present a counter-argument, if you find it so absurd.

Oh indeed! The only person making a fool out of yourself is you. I'm not the spastic contending that Isaiah meant virgin when he didn't even use the word- your bizarre apologetic circular reasoning that because Jesus was supposedly virgin-born Isaiah must've meant virgin is truly indicative of the state of apologetics.

How about some evidential support here? I want you to show me not only that the word harah is in the past tense, but also that it is indeed the word used in the verse.

More bullshit delay tactics "I want proof of everything!!!!!!"

"laken yittan adonai hu lakem oth (omen) hinneh ha-almah (young woman) harah (is pregnant) ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel."

Harah is past tense. This incorrect translation was pointed out by the Jews to Christians but for 15 centuries the Church has persisted in this translation. See the confession of Jerome. If you even know what it is. A Hebrew scholar would also sort you out.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

Conclusion: apologists = sycophants

Fundamentalists = bigots.