A Final Proof Against Christianity

[nicholas1M7]

word of god,huh?no thnx
www.evilbible.com/

wrong
love is an emotion.

God is a imaginary being

that is true,
but then you contradict yourself with


if God was Creator of ALL wouldnt you think WE would be part of God then?
how could our hearts,be separate from god/creator?
(btw whoever uses their HEARTS to hear???

god as defined by the bible cannot exist
www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/index.html

is that why he kills millions of them in huricanes,floods,starvation,sicknesses and so on all the time?

souls,spirits,afterlife its all just a wishfull thinking,invented by primitive people long time ago before science showed us what we are made of
www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html

carefull there Q25, you show us clear as day your emotional standpoint on the subject. I happen to know a real psychic and he believes in God, so how is someone who has seen more than you have take your post seriously?

 

[audible]

it is extremely unlike that you would find a psychic that did'nt believe in a god, cant say I seen more then him though, you are talking about reality are'nt you.
as he may have been to more place and done more things then me.
but if your refering to fantasy as seen more then, he and I dont have hulcinations, and are not delusional.
incidently I stand with him regarding his views, and I think you'll find most do.

 

[SnakeLord]

I happen to know a real psychic and he believes in God

Ooh, scary. A "real" psychic. Would this "real" psychic of yours be willing to undergo serious scrutiny?

 

[§outh§tar]

Ooh, scary. A "real" psychic. Would this "real" psychic of yours be willing to undergo serious scrutiny?

If he wants to keep being a "real" psychic: No.

 

[§outh§tar]

No atheist should take any statement of judgement as anything more than poking fun because such a statement is of no conqequence to the atheist (in their mind). No God to say do not judge.

What was meant is exactly what was implied. One inconsequential 'unfullfilled' (as claimed and challenged) prophecy among even 50 fullfilled is not reason for any Christian to abondon their faith - it gives reason to search for answers - such is the method scientists employ. Atheists look to science with such a divine outlook that it always serves as a usueful comparison.

I don't look to science with any divine outlook. Science does not (directly) put food in my stomach or give me a place to sleep at night.

It does show that the Bible is indeed errant, dashing the claims of inerrantists, the so-called "bibliolaters". Also if a divinely inspired writer messed up on one prophecy, the chances of him getting the rest write are not too good. Are you an inerrantist by the way? Sorry I assume all Christians are, or should be, inerrantists but I find this is not the case always.

Your conjecture all depends on what you mean by "sincerity". Of course there is justification in doubting the historical accuracy of the biblical authors in some cases. However, as surely as God exists, and those men had faith in God, and one has faith in God as those men saw God, God's truth speaks through their words regardless.

Like I said above, if the Holy Spirit, while 'breathing' Word of Truth through human vessels, was ignorant of events then we have a problem. That's some Holy Spirit of the Old Testament who does not know the value of pi, is unhable to do simple addition, and just plain cannot count. Maybe because He doesn't have fingers?

That to which the word baseless is arbitrarily assigned when one doesn't like what is stated.

In that case, your definition of "baseless base" must be "arbitrarily assigned". I have never seen the adjective and noun form of a word come together and make such a definition. Doesn't matter anyway and no need to respond (not pertinent to subject), I'm deluded by the things of the world in any case.

Conscience is not applicable in such a case: only rationale along with memory. In many cases, as most should know, the word son does not refer strictly to biology. There are theological aspects to the Biblical texts which one (although he may) should not simply ignore when he searches for contradictions within the biblical text.

Show me these theological aspects of the Biblical texts which are pertinent in properly construing the meaning of 'son'.

This same method of interpretation was employed in the wonderful thread; "Jesus Is Not Coming" and though repeated attempts were made to highlight the convenient limits placed on the definitions of some words they were largely ignored only asking for "contextual evidence" that one particular meaning is implied.

..which you delightfully neglected to provide. The limits placed on interpretation of a text are based entirely on its context, be it textual, emotional, historical context. We obviously do not know the emotional mindframe of the writer as they wrote so we can only base our understanding on the contextual information provided and our knowledge of the times which inspired the writer to record the narratives.

Failure to prioritize context in these documents of antiquity leads to haphazard interpretation. Just look at strict/loose construction of the Constitution in the Jeffersonian era and the arguments propagated by the Republicans against Hamilton.

There is no need for the levirate marraige to apply to every single descendant in the House of David, where in the post was that indicated - care to indicate or is dishonesty inherrent in such a statement - or maybe honesty to one's rationale? No surprise in any case - whatever restricts an atheist from holding dishonesty as a guiding principle? See below...

Ok then. Show me which descendants the levirate marriage applied to, and in doing so, make note of the descendants Matthew purposefully skipped to retain his numerical scheme in your response.

[Falacious]... And so the stated person's words are taken on faith? Very Christian - it seems some Christian elements still linger - though questionably applied.

I certainly did not imply in any sense that the author of the site wrote the page "on faith". In case you did not know, fallacious means "tending to deceive or mislead". Also, if the author's explanation was "taken on faith" then that defeats the purpose of his apologetics site, which is to defend the Christian faith. Why should he/she defend the Christian faith by taking explanations on faith,? That is obviously circular reasoning.

Anywho; The virgin birth was of unprecedented theological significance. What the book of Luke shows is that Jesus seemed to do away with traditional practices even simply through His birth. What a Mighty God?! Luke would have very good reason to focus on Mary's genealogy as he was focusing on a virgin birth. Regardless, as was stated, there are many possible solutions to the claimed inconsistencies, and there is no reason presented, just yet, for any rational, logical, faithful, and non-wagonist Christian to abandon their faith. It is advised that something else be tried. It makes one wonder what the justification for (de)conversion was in the first place. Only God knows. Maybe just lack of faith in God (speculation).

• N.B. The link supplied is not intended to brainwash, but to allow one to review the available information and formulate a conclusion between himself and God.

"Dig your own grave."

Is there even one post where you will not hesitate to bring up my deconversion like it is at all pertinent to anything in the discussion? Why don't you list some of the more plausible arguments in defense of the incongruous genealogies so we can see whether or not they are useful for strengthening one's faith?

There, even the bolded parts were fixed. Now to fix the text;

2 Samuel 2 [NIV]:
"David Anointed King Over Judah

1. In the course of time, David inquired of the LORD . "Shall I go up to one of the towns of Judah?" he asked.
The LORD said, "Go up."
David asked, "Where shall I go?"
"To Hebron," the LORD answered.
2. So David went up there with his two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail, the widow of Nabal of Carmel. 3. David also took the men who were with him, each with his family, and they settled in Hebron and its towns. 4. Then the men of Judah came to Hebron and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah.
When David was told that it was the men of Jabesh Gilead who had buried Saul, 5. he sent messengers to the men of Jabesh Gilead to say to them, "The LORD bless you for showing this kindness to Saul your master by burying him. 6. May the LORD now show you kindness and faithfulness, and I too will show you the same favor because you have done this. 7. Now then, be strong and brave, for Saul your master is dead, and the house of Judah has anointed me king over them."​

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!



This only goes to show your ignorance. I erred in saying Aaron was of the house of Juday and since you were obviously ignorant of this mistake, you capitalized on it and went through that whole spiel to show that Mary, albeit of Aronic heritage, was STILL a descendant of the house of Juday.

Congratutulations on our folly, yours and mine. What I had intended to say is that Mary was thereby of Levitic heritage.

Good job seizing hold of my mistake. Haha!

Please, do not, although that may be done when taking atheist crap and using it to fight against God and His Word. So failing that, we move to other feeble attacks. Jesus never sinned, therefore Jesus was no sinner. That is why one must conlcude the Bible is God's word, because every seeming attack on it's veracity seems to be a boomerang.As was implied in the statement; "I have two responses as seem appropriate", some posts speak for themselves and therefore need no refuting.

Don't be silly, you did not refute anything, only showed you thought by showing Mary's position in the line of Judah, you would show that she was a descendant of David even though she was actually of Levitic heritage. Good one!

But don't worry, you still have not addressed the secondary comment:
"we still arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was born of a sinner, which according to the NT, makes him a sinner as well."

Heh. What a sinusoidal wave of attacks? First we question the veracity of prophecies to question the veracity of the text, then we use the veracity of the prophecies to question the veracity of the text. What a tangled web we weave. Oh and now Jesus was the Son of Joseph? So now son may be applied in a non-biological sense? Hilarious. O.k., I think I'll accept this one as one of the unfulfilled prophecies. Anymore?

Wow, how insightful you are. As any good debator knows, it is necessary to close all the doors used by his 'opponent'. I was merely making hypothetical situations and showing you how in any case, Jesus STILL CANNOT BE descendant of David by the Bible's own testimony. Obviously you don't understand what hypothetical is and you slyly avoided addressing those charges as well.

Why don't you go ahead and actually address those charges so we can see if you are honest?

Take a look at the link of possible solutions above. It is quite an informative read. However, the words are not to be taken on faith in the author, but faith in God. The onus on us in all our rational honesty is to review the information presented, and check it's varacity. Have fun.

What a circular argument! Your faith is in what the author says about Jesus (God) to be true and then you say you believe in the author's narrative because of Jesus (God).

What claim do your refer to here? The reason why the author includes Jeconiah twice is given, then it is stated that it was arbitrarily done... [Arbitrary]. Of what significance is this? Huh? The word son was often used instead of grandson, great grandson etc. 2 Kings states that Jeconiah was the son of Jehohiakin? Josiah was father of Jehohiakin? Therefore in the name of tradition Jeconiah is son of Josiah? Josiah if father of Jeconiah. Jesus is the Son of David.

​

To quote Paul Tobin :

Matthew 1:11
and Josi'ah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

Jeconiah is just another from of the name Jehoiachin and we know from the Old Testament that Josiah was Jeconiah's grandfather:

II Kings 23:34 (II Chronicles 36:4)
And Pharaoh-nechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim...

II Kings 24:6 (II Chronicles 36:8)
So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin [Jeconiah] his son reigned in his stead.


Again we see Matthew skipping a generation to make his numerological scheme work. [6] Actually even as it stands in Matthew there is actually only thirteen generations from the exile to Jesus (for Jehoiachin was already counted in the second fourteen generation [See the table above].). The best that can be stated regarding the number of generations are that there are fourteen from Abraham to David, eighteen from David to the exile and thirteen from the exile to Jesus. [7] Neither a pretty nor satisfying numerological relationship!

He also mentions Luke's blunder concerning Arphaxad and Shelah, which I hope you will address along with the above quote.

Parts that may be of any particular consequence to the faithful and rational Christian reading it. As was stated, for those - no responses required. They speak for themselves.Let us all remember Jesus statement about the atom in the perceived and the galaxy in the perceiving.

Jesus did not know what an atom is - or galaxy for that matter. Supposedly he could see the world from the top of the highest mountain - that should tell you enough.

EDIT: Since you asked to move to the next prophecy, here you go, show me how it was fulfilled: In Matt. 2:15, he claims when Mary, Joseph and Jesus flee to Egypt to escape Herod, the return of Jesus from Egypt (after Herod's death) was in fulfillment of Hosea's prophecy.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Southstar, The God of Abraham made Himself known to me before I had read the bible. I heard Him again when I read the bible. You cannot hear God speak through the Words of scripture if you do not recognise His voice. For those who have ears to hear...

peace

c20

 

[SnakeLord]

C20.. what does he sound like? Does he have an accent etc?

 

[§outh§tar]

Southstar, The God of Abraham made Himself known to me before I had read the bible. I heard Him again when I read the bible. You cannot hear God speak through the Words of scripture if you do not recognise His voice. For those who have ears to hear...

peace

c20

Aaah the joys of circular reasoning.

How did you know He was the God of Abraham if you hadn't read the Bible? Guesswork? Saying I cannot hear God speak through Scripture because I do not recognize his voice is circular since I must read scripture to "recognize" His voice.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Aaah the joys of circular reasoning.

How did you know He was the God of Abraham if you hadn't read the Bible? Guesswork? Saying I cannot hear God speak through Scripture because I do not recognize his voice is circular since I must read scripture to "recognize" His voice.

First you must lay yourself down Southstar. Put yourself aside. You must become less so that He becomes more. The child must be still and then he will here the voice of his Teacher. If you are noisy, you can read and read but the words will mean nothing to you because the Teacher has told you to be still. The words just point to the Teacher. It is to the Teacher you must listen. He is real. Alive. You once knew this. Know this again.

peace

c20

 

[mis-t-highs]

are you sure that teacher, is who it says it is, as it spoke to you before you read the bible.
and you laid yourself open to it not wise, not wise at all.
it could be your devil.

wise and a believer are contradictory.

 

[MarcAC]

Also if a divinely inspired writer messed up on one prophecy, the chances of him getting the rest write are not too good.

What is the basis of this conclusion?

Are you an inerrantist by the way? Sorry I assume all Christians are, or should be, inerrantists but I find this is not the case always.

The Bible is inerrant as the Word of God to the individual. The Bible, obviously, cannot be of historically perfect authoring. However, we can objectively elliminate all the irrelevant noise and leave ourselves with God's Word through and to man. I doubt, however, that God, desiring a personal relationship with each individual would restrict His word to a strictly objective (as perceived) truth.

Like I said above, if the Holy Spirit, while 'breathing' Word of Truth through human vessels, was ignorant of events then we have a problem.

If I do get your intended meaning then we should remember that the Word of God revealed through man is spoken or authored in terms of the man's understanding. One should not assume that God is defined by man's language. If we do not assume that then we can simply state that a man will pen what has been revealed to him to the best of his understanding. Certainly you didn't refer to God The Holy Spirit as being ignorant.

That's some Holy Spirit of the Old Testament who does not know the value of pi, is unhable to do simple addition, and just plain cannot count. Maybe because He doesn't have fingers?

What is the value of pi? What is pi? What are 1, 2 ,3, 4... etc.? Please refer back to the statement above this.

Show me these theological aspects of the Biblical texts which are pertinent in properly construing the meaning of 'son'.

These were stated in some posts above I'm sure (then again maybe not). I won’t repeat myself though; the link of possible solutions should be enough. The levirate marraige is quite pertinent to the situation. I'm sure you can see why (son/daughter of the dead brother or the living brother who carries on the dead brother's name?).

The limits placed on interpretation of a text are based entirely on its context, be it textual, emotional, historical context.

For a faithful Christian, there is much more than a historical context to God's Word. God is timeless, therefore God's Word is timeless. If one were to rationally, and faithfully apply Jesus, and the apostle's words, and the implications of their words, it becomes quite obvious that certain stresses were pointless. As was stated before, Jesus spoke using literary devices, many, many times. Of course people were confused about the tearing down of the temple and rebuilding in three days. They weren't confused after He was raised in three days, just as, possibly, the atheist's confusion will dissipate once He returns. Of course Jesus, in His wisdom, and the apostles in their inspired wisdom would correctly imply that they should live as though He will return on the next bat of their eyelids because His return 2 000 000 000 years later will make no difference to them in the 0-100 or so years they have in this existence.... and please... see below...

Failure to prioritize context in these documents of antiquity leads to haphazard interpretation. Just look at strict/loose construction of the Constitution in the Jeffersonian era and the arguments propagated by the Republicans against Hamilton.

Now in this special case where it was concluded that "Jesus is not coming"... what are the varying haphazard interpretations that can be garnered from the text if one were to see it as the faithful Christian would see it above? How does one define generation in the strict sense? Is it limited to the life one lives? So "this generation will not pass away before these things come to pass" means you will not die before this happens?
Even to quote a few pertinent verses of

Matthew 24 [NIV] in context

instead of isolating (mis)interpreting and erring;

34. "I tell you the truth, this generation [or race] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

The Day and Hour Unknown

36. "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
42. "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come."
44. "So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."​

The text clearly communicates a sense of urgency, yet also clearly indicates that the time is not known. If we do not conlude that Jesus, God, is deceitful then we will then assume that Jesus most likely is referring to humanity as a whole.

Ok then. Show me which descendants the levirate marriage applied to, and in doing so, make note of the descendants Matthew purposefully skipped to retain his numerical scheme in your response.

What are the implications of Matthew's recorded genealogy skipping generations to maintain a numerical scheme based on the number 14 (Keeping in mind son grand(son) great grand(son) etc...)? I refer you to the link of possible solutions... as was stated it is quite an informative read:

"According to an explanation going back in essence at least to Julius Africanus in the first half of the third century A.D. (who claimed to have heard it as handed down by the relatives of Jesus), Joseph's grandmother (Estha) bore Jacob to one husband (Matthan) and Eli to a second (Matthat). Joseph's mother married Eli, who died without children; then she married his uterine brother Jacob, who raised up Joseph as seed to Eli. Thus Joseph had Eli as his legal father and Jacob as his biological father. The genealogy of Matthew shows the biological ancestry of Jesus, and that of Luke the legal ancestry."...

"Matthan and Matthat are similar names. Thus one is faced with the "dubious coincidence" that the mother of Jacob and Eli married two men who had almost the same names. But similarity of first names is not unheard of in the case of successive husbands or in the case of brothers. Hence, no historian can exclude this explanation, handed down from early times, on the mere ground that the names of the two husbands are similar."​

I certainly did not imply in any sense that the author of the site wrote the page "on faith".

Apparently noone did then. Of what authority is this persons text? I refer you to the link of possible solutions. Many more authorites quoted with differing insights… your task is to eliminate the noise… in all honesty to yourself.

Why don't you list some of the more plausible arguments in defense of the incongruous genealogies so we can see whether or not they are useful for strengthening one's faith?

Provided in the link to the possible solutions.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!



This only goes to show your ignorance. I erred in saying Aaron was of the house of Juday and since you were obviously ignorant of this mistake, you capitalized on it and went through that whole spiel to show that Mary, albeit of Aronic heritage, was STILL a descendant of the house of Juday.

Congratutulations on our folly, yours and mine. What I had intended to say is that Mary was thereby of Levitic heritage.

Good job seizing hold of my mistake. Haha!

I do not profess to know or remember everything in God's written word; thus salvation in Jesus. What I did was respond to your claimed discrepancy as fittingly as possible. I really did not give a hair's breadth about whatever else you were referring to. What the situation rightfully demonstrates is your faith in atheism (atheists/yourself) and my faith in God (as Christians see God). Regardless; what is the significance of this? The significance of this is still not appreciated in all ones ignorance. May one enlighten us all with it's significance?

But don't worry, you still have not addressed the secondary comment:
"we still arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was born of a sinner, which according to the NT, makes him a sinner as well."

Where in the NT does this make Jesus a sinner?

What a circular argument! Your faith is in what the author says about Jesus (God) to be true and then you say you believe in the author's narrative because of Jesus (God).

What is the significance of this statement? At times circular logic is the only logic rationally applicable. Your whole existence is reduced to circular logic. And referring back to your interesting statements above; What is the number 1?

EDIT: Since you asked to move to the next prophecy, here you go, show me how it was fulfilled: In Matt. 2:15, he claims when Mary, Joseph and Jesus flee to Egypt to escape Herod, the return of Jesus from Egypt (after Herod's death) was in fulfillment of Hosea's prophecy.

The Word of God is for man, through man. The Word of God is for the individual. The true word of God speaks to the individual. Interpretation of inferred prophecy requires insight. Only those with faith in God will understand this. A text seen as a prophecy may be a prophecy to the individual’s insight, while another misses the point entirely. As long as one’s interpretation is in line with the rest of God’s Word, I (in my limited view) do not see why God would have a problem with it.

 

[MarcAC]

Took a while yes, but we all have lives to live other than watching people dig their own graves... the blind man who refuses to see the universe as it really is... through faith. Hairy one isn't it?

 

[§outh§tar]

First you must lay yourself down Southstar. Put yourself aside. You must become less so that He becomes more. The child must be still and then he will here the voice of his Teacher. If you are noisy, you can read and read but the words will mean nothing to you because the Teacher has told you to be still. The words just point to the Teacher. It is to the Teacher you must listen. He is real. Alive. You once knew this. Know this again.

peace

c20

c2O, can you think of any reason why as a Christian I would reject the truth much in the way Paul accepted it?

 

[anonymous2]

Took a while yes, but we all have lives to live other than watching people dig their own graves... the blind man who refuses to see the universe as it really is... through faith. Hairy one isn't it?

Well, I could be wrong in this, but I'll go ahead and interpret this as a reference to me, since I've described my lack of faith on this forum, and Jenyar did once say I was "staring myself blind against religion", and I see a reference to "people" and "blind" (I recently referred to people and said I didn't defend C20 blindly). If I am wrong, I apologize.

Out of curiosity, what exactly is the "universe as it really is"? Big bang? Infinite big bangs? String theory? Eternal universe? Revised Steady State theory? The cosmology of the ancient Hebrews? Or similar to what I said in another post, "whatever theory one comes up with"? Is it what "science" thinks is true today? Or is it what it might think is true in 100 years?

I know that a "modern Christian" viewpoint is the "big bang". How this meshes with ancient Hebrew cosmology, that I'd like to see explained. I have a problem with a deity requiring "faith" when "faith" means accepting a false, "primitive" idea of cosmology.

Or is it really ridiculous of me to simply say "I don't know"? Why should I claim that I know if I don't know?

I don't really think it's necessarily a "post modern" idea to rely on reason. Of course, the NT tries to denigrate reason, from what I can see. That might be a viewpoint of some religions though, from what I can tell. What better way to keep one in a cult than to denigrate reason? I'd venture to guess some ancient religions did not like one relying on reason, so I doubt the NT is unique in this aspect. I'm not saying Christianity is a cult. I'm just saying such a denigration of reason could influence one to accept a cult, couldn't it?

I'd guess most ancient gods and goddesses didn't really like people to think for themselves. Here's a link where Ishtar wanted people to rely on her and not humans.

http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2004/0100/0108.php

If someone shows me something true I can have faith in, perhaps it'll interest me.

As I said, if this was not a reference to me, I apologize.

 

[MarcAC]

Out of curiosity, what exactly is the "universe as it really is"? Big bang? Infinite big bangs? String theory? Eternal universe? Revised Steady State theory? The cosmology of the ancient Hebrews? Or similar to what I said in another post, "whatever theory one comes up with"? Is it what "science" thinks is true today? Or is it what it might think is true in 100 years?

I see your inherrent point. No disagreements; but in all this I really don't see how one can live without faith in something. Agnostic are you? I don't think there is any true agnostic. One thing you know for sure is that you question knowledge on a whole.

I know that a "modern Christian" viewpoint is the "big bang". How this meshes with ancient Hebrew cosmology, that I'd like to see explained. I have a problem with a deity requiring "faith" when "faith" means accepting a false, "primitive" idea of cosmology.

Big Bang is in the realms of science - a Christian may advocate any scientific theory to his rational appeasement. For a Christian, science is a description of God's creation in another language. It certainly doesn't define what God's creation is. Only God defines creation. Science invents descriptions. Some descriptions seem to work better than others... but you can never really know if you're getting closer to the truth or further away from it. I have faith in God, everything else is relative. Even if what I know may be false, at this moment, I know what God allows me to know. I'm satisfied with that (but that doesn't mean I will not seek more knowledge).

I don't really think it's necessarily a "post modern" idea to rely on reason. Of course, the NT tries to denigrate reason, from what I can see. That might be a viewpoint of some religions though, from what I can tell. What better way to keep one in a cult than to denigrate reason? I'd venture to guess some ancient religions did not like one relying on reason, so I doubt the NT is unique in this aspect. I'm not saying Christianity is a cult. I'm just saying such a denigration of reason could influence one to accept a cult, couldn't it?

The New Testament doesn't denigrate reason. The New Testament advocates using reason, however it doesn't advocate it as the only means to discovering truth. You have to use reason, and faith through experience.

 

[anonymous2]

I see your inherrent point. No disagreements; but in all this I really don't see how one can live without faith in something. Agnostic are you? I don't think there is any true agnostic. One thing you know for sure is that you question knowledge on a whole.

Fair enough. I'd say you basically hit upon my mentality as a whole right there. Yes, I'd consider myself agnostic. Well, from my perspective, it's difficult for me to have faith. I mean, if I could find something I thought was true and try to put my faith into it, that could be another story.

Thanks for your response.

 

[§outh§tar]

What is the basis of this conclusion?

Assuming Holy Spirit does not inspire mistakes and contradictions which causes the faith of humans to waver.

The Bible is inerrant as the Word of God to the individual. The Bible, obviously, cannot be of historically perfect authoring. However, we can objectively elliminate all the irrelevant noise and leave ourselves with God's Word through and to man. I doubt, however, that God, desiring a personal relationship with each individual would restrict His word to a strictly objective (as perceived) truth.

Why do you say the Bible is inerrant as the Word of God to the individual?

Why should divinely inspired books not be of historically perfect authoring? I thought God is the author of the Bible?

What is this irrelevant noise you speak of?

If God inserts subjective elements into His word does that not imply that some individuals will automatically (by nature) falter because of their perception of those elements?

If I do get your intended meaning then we should remember that the Word of God revealed through man is spoken or authored in terms of the man's understanding.

One should not assume that God is defined by man's language

If so, the Bible is a useless group of documents. We might as well look to the Veda or whatever other religious texts.

If we do not assume that then we can simply state that a man will pen what has been revealed to him to the best of his understanding.

Is that not the case? If not, why do we assume that God is not defined by man's language?

What is the value of pi? What is pi? What are 1, 2 ,3, 4... etc.? Please refer back to the statement above this.

Let's think about the mathematical implications. Why don't you try doing some geometry using 3.0 as the value of pi and tell me how far off your results are. When you are done, you will find easily that your ad hoc explanation is simply untenable especially in this case. The part about numbers is at the end.

These were stated in some posts above I'm sure (then again maybe not). I won’t repeat myself though; the link of possible solutions should be enough. The levirate marraige is quite pertinent to the situation. I'm sure you can see why (son/daughter of the dead brother or the living brother who carries on the dead brother's name?).

What I meant is which one do you believe is the most reasonable, since they can't all be right. After all, I'm not discussing this with the site author to find his opinion.

For a faithful Christian, there is much more than a historical context to God's Word. God is timeless, therefore God's Word is timeless. If one were to rationally, and faithfully apply Jesus, and the apostle's words, and the implications of their words, it becomes quite obvious that certain stresses were pointless. As was stated before, Jesus spoke using literary devices, many, many times. Of course people were confused about the tearing down of the temple and rebuilding in three days. They weren't confused after He was raised in three days, just as, possibly, the atheist's confusion will dissipate once He returns. Of course Jesus, in His wisdom, and the apostles in their inspired wisdom would correctly imply that they should live as though He will return on the next bat of their eyelids because His return 2 000 000 000 years later will make no difference to them in the 0-100 or so years they have in this existence.... and please... see below...

Excellent. I am sure you will understand why I find this to be an ad hoc and untenable interpretation but as always I give you a chance to defend your opinion. Why don't you actually provide the contextual evidence which leads you to such an understanding. Failure to do so means you are pulling conjecture out of the clouds to defend the untenable and you are a liar.

Now in this special case where it was concluded that "Jesus is not coming"... what are the varying haphazard interpretations that can be garnered from the text if one were to see it as the faithful Christian would see it above? How does one define generation in the strict sense? Is it limited to the life one lives? So "this generation will not pass away before these things come to pass" means you will not die before this happens?
Even to quote a few pertinent verses of

Matthew 24 [NIV] in context

instead of isolating (mis)interpreting and erring;

34. "I tell you the truth, this generation [or race] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

The Day and Hour Unknown

36. "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
42. "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come."
44. "So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."​

The text clearly communicates a sense of urgency, yet also clearly indicates that the time is not known. If we do not conlude that Jesus, God, is deceitful then we will then assume that Jesus most likely is referring to humanity as a whole.

I thought I had already addressed this line of apologetics in my post but here goes again (see Ed Babinski's 'The Lowdown on God's Showdown).

[Naturally there is a distinction] between an inexact indication of the space of time, beyond which the event will not be deferred (a 'generation'), and the determination of the precise date and time (the 'day and the hour') at which it will occur; the former Jesus gives, the latter he declares himself unable to give. [16]

Furthermore, having admitted that he did not know the precise 'day or the hour,' Jesus continued to address his listeners as though that 'day or hour' could not be further than a mere 'generation' away:

Therefore be on the alert, for you [his listeners, circa 30 A.D.] do not know which day your Lord is coming...at an hour when you do not think he will [Mat 24:36,42,44]

Definitely not a 'day' or 'hour' that was 'two millenniums' from then! Compare Luke 21:36:

But keep on the alert at all times, praying in order that you [his first century listeners] may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.

----

The ample textual evidences I provided in my post are corroboration of this albeit they are not really necessary.

What are the implications of Matthew's recorded genealogy skipping generations to maintain a numerical scheme based on the number 14 (Keeping in mind son grand(son) great grand(son) etc...)? I refer you to the link of possible solutions... as was stated it is quite an informative read:

"According to an explanation going back in essence at least to Julius Africanus in the first half of the third century A.D. (who claimed to have heard it as handed down by the relatives of Jesus), Joseph's grandmother (Estha) bore Jacob to one husband (Matthan) and Eli to a second (Matthat). Joseph's mother married Eli, who died without children; then she married his uterine brother Jacob, who raised up Joseph as seed to Eli. Thus Joseph had Eli as his legal father and Jacob as his biological father. The genealogy of Matthew shows the biological ancestry of Jesus, and that of Luke the legal ancestry."...

"Matthan and Matthat are similar names. Thus one is faced with the "dubious coincidence" that the mother of Jacob and Eli married two men who had almost the same names. But similarity of first names is not unheard of in the case of successive husbands or in the case of brothers. Hence, no historian can exclude this explanation, handed down from early times, on the mere ground that the names of the two husbands are similar."​

Apparently noone did then. Of what authority is this persons text? I refer you to the link of possible solutions. Many more authorites quoted with differing insights… your task is to eliminate the noise… in all honesty to yourself.

Aah yes, are good friend Julius Africanus. Is this not the same historian who claimed the solar eclipse covered the WHOLE world (the world is a not flat mind you)..

Well, again I give you a change to redeem yourself of this convoluted nonsense. Can you provide ANY SHRED OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE (heck, I don't care if it's Biblical or nonbiblical) that supports this utterly unfounded conjecture? The Bible, does not, and I repeat, DOES NOT in any way support such a stupid postulate. Even saying Jesus was abducted by aliens from Jupiter while on the cross has much more credence and can probably be meagerly corroborated. Failure to provide any sort of corroboration means again you are a LIAR who picks "explanations" out of the clouds to defend these absurd positions.

Haha, Joseph and Heli were half brothers and they each had separate fathers, shared the same mothers, Heli died and then Joseph got to marrying his half-sister. Not only would you posit something this stupid, but you have the audacity to claim that after the death of Jacob's mother, she married Matthat.

Provided in the link to the possible solutions.

Well, also like I said, I'm talking to you, not the site owner, so its your opinions that matter not his. What you believe in is what I'm interested in really; you give me feedback and hint at pascal's wager all you want, he/she doesn't. Try writing down your own conclusions or the explanations you think are most credible.

I do not profess to know or remember everything in God's written word; thus salvation in Jesus. What I did was respond to your claimed discrepancy as fittingly as possible. I really did not give a hair's breadth about whatever else you were referring to. What the situation rightfully demonstrates is your faith in atheism (atheists/yourself) and my faith in God (as Christians see God). Regardless; what is the significance of this? The significance of this is still not appreciated in all ones ignorance. May one enlighten us all with it's significance?

Brushing aside your INCORRECT, IMPERTINENT and BASELESS judgements of what I believe:

It means your "rebuttal" or whatever was simply useless. Why don't you try going back to reread and coming up with something more sensible please?

Where in the NT does this make Jesus a sinner?

Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Unless you are saying Jesus was not a man? Or will you now postulate a double standard?

What is the significance of this statement? At times circular logic is the only logic rationally applicable. Your whole existence is reduced to circular logic. And referring back to your interesting statements above; What is the number 1?

One is a number?

Interesting tactic but let us actually take a look at the implications therein:

Let us remember one thing: Your final question is not at all pertinent. Do you forget that numbers are an invention of man? Therefore any attempt to relate the two instances immediately makes the author's statements about God His own invention thereby nullifying your argument. Nice try but no cigar.

The Word of God is for man, through man. The Word of God is for the individual. The true word of God speaks to the individual. Interpretation of inferred prophecy requires insight. Only those with faith in God will understand this. A text seen as a prophecy may be a prophecy to the individual’s insight, while another misses the point entirely. As long as one’s interpretation is in line with the rest of God’s Word, I (in my limited view) do not see why God would have a problem with it.

Thank you for the lecture. Now instead of dabbling in order to avoid the question, why don't you just show me how Hosea's prophecy was fulfilled?

 

[David F.]

Congratutulations on our folly, yours and mine. What I had intended to say is that Mary was thereby of Levitic heritage.

Actually it turns out that Mary must have been of Davidic descent through her father and of Levitic (Aaron) descent through her mother. If you are interested, I can show you why.

 

[§outh§tar]

Well at least someone wants to answer my questions directly. Go head.

 

[MarcAC]

Assuming Holy Spirit does not inspire mistakes and contradictions which causes the faith of humans to waver.

It certainly doesn't. What the Holy Spirit inspires is not contradictory. The human interpretation's of it may be.

Why do you say the Bible is inerrant as the Word of God to the individual?

God is a personal being. God's Word speaks to the individual (though some may see a "unit" recognised by God as a bit more than one person - like a family - but that's another story). God's word is not science. Once the individual interprets what is presented in line with the rest of God's Word I don't see why it should be a problem (as was stated before). Problem?

Why should divinely inspired books not be of historically perfect authoring? I thought God is the author of the Bible?

The Bible is written by man, inspired by God. If man was not wading neck-deep in sin well maybe it would be perfect. Anywho, personally, nothing is perfect except God himself (then we have to wonder what perfection is).

What is this irrelevant noise you speak of?

All the things that atheists and christians; christians and christians squabble over which in the end seem to make no big difference either way. Or, for example... "Was it one angel or two?".

If God inserts subjective elements into His word does that not imply that some individuals will automatically (by nature) falter because of their perception of those elements?

Not in any particular sense. In any event; thus salvation in Jesus.

If so, the Bible is a useless group of documents. We might as well look to the Veda or whatever other religious texts.

How so?

Is that not the case? If not, why do we assume that God is not defined by man's language?

Your question here is rather unclear. What I mean when I state "defined" is; what man says of God doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the Nature of God. You may say God is evil or God does evil, but God remains good and God does good. You may say God doesn't exist, but God will still exist.

Let's think about the mathematical implications. Why don't you try doing some geometry using 3.0 as the value of pi and tell me how far off your results are. When you are done, you will find easily that your ad hoc explanation is simply untenable especially in this case. The part about numbers is at the end.

Will you please clarify this statement (and the whole thing about pi)? What are it's implications relative to the Biblical text? I thought I got what you were getting at... but it seems I didn't. What is your point about the whole pi thing? What I asked you was; "What is pi?" The reason for asking is this; What, if anything, does knowledge of pi (an idealistic invention of man - a tool) have to do with God, His Word, or the Holy Spirit?

What I meant is which one do you believe is the most reasonable, since they can't all be right. After all, I'm not discussing this with the site author to find his opinion.

I remain ambivalent. However, the existence of the solutions is enough for me to keep my faith. I'm more in line with that author of the site; As more insight is gained, and the situation is resolved, then I might start leaning to one as opposed to the other. However, this isn't about me, as was indicated in several posts up - this is about you and God. I still have my faith, I still believe.

Excellent. I am sure you will understand why I find this to be an ad hoc and untenable interpretation but as always I give you a chance to defend your opinion. Why don't you actually provide the contextual evidence which leads you to such an understanding. Failure to do so means you are pulling conjecture out of the clouds to defend the untenable and you are a liar.

I would advise you to read the post again, read the Bible texts that were presented, then comment on their contextual sufficiency. Ignoring the texts and continuously asking where is the evidence doesn't add up. Discredit it first. And of a particular note, in science, ad hoc explanations often lead to seredipitous discoveries (and resolutions). I have a scientific mind - sue me.

I thought I had already addressed this line of apologetics in my post but here goes again (see Ed Babinski's 'The Lowdown on God's Showdown).

[Naturally there is a distinction] between an inexact indication of the space of time, beyond which the event will not be deferred (a 'generation'), and the determination of the precise date and time (the 'day and the hour') at which it will occur; the former Jesus gives, the latter he declares himself unable to give. [16]

Furthermore, having admitted that he did not know the precise 'day or the hour,' Jesus continued to address his listeners as though that 'day or hour' could not be further than a mere 'generation' away:

Therefore be on the alert, for you [his listeners, circa 30 A.D.] do not know which day your Lord is coming...at an hour when you do not think he will [Mat 24:36,42,44]

Definitely not a 'day' or 'hour' that was 'two millenniums' from then! Compare Luke 21:36:

But keep on the alert at all times, praying in order that you [his first century listeners] may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.

And you still fail to see the point of it all. Why? Jesus, statements, taken in their entirety point to no specific time it more they point to a period when events will take place. You were a claimed Christian once right? Man lives no more than one life. The fact is; for the 'first century listeners' and the 'listeners' of today we have one life to live and we need to live as if Jesus will come before it ends. I could end the next second. What is your problem with this explanation of Jesus words? You have no case here. The fact remains, your conclusions were unwarranted. Of course, as an atheist, you may feel free to judge the character of Jesus, the Son of God, God, as one of ignorance and insincerity. All the better for you in the end no?

Aah yes, are good friend Julius Africanus. Is this not the same historian who claimed the solar eclipse covered the WHOLE world (the world is a not flat mind you)..

There are soooo many brilliant minds of the past who believed the Earth was flat. Simple interpretation of available evidence. I don't know what you were trying to prove by this statement, but it really adds to nor detracts from anything.

Well, again I give you a change to redeem yourself of this convoluted nonsense. Can you provide ANY SHRED OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE (heck, I don't care if it's Biblical or nonbiblical) that supports this utterly unfounded conjecture? The Bible, does not, and I repeat, DOES NOT in any way support such a stupid postulate. Even saying Jesus was abducted by aliens from Jupiter while on the cross has much more credence and can probably be meagerly corroborated. Failure to provide any sort of corroboration means again you are a LIAR who picks "explanations" out of the clouds to defend these absurd positions.

Haha, Joseph and Heli were half brothers and they each had separate fathers, shared the same mothers, Heli died and then Joseph got to marrying his half-sister. Not only would you posit something this stupid, but you have the audacity to claim that after the death of Jacob's mother, she married Matthat.

You are indeed the atheist. I will leave you with that opinion. The evidence is clear as day. The fact is Levirate marriage was practiced, and please, some people think sky-diving is absurd. I notice the common usage of these words in all your posts (and I will inform you that calling something absurd without showing how it is so amounts to nothing), yet you still do not show why the explanation is absurd. The statements only illustrate that you haven't read or understood the relationships presented (where is it stated that Joseph and Heli are half brothers?) or, as was done before, will you demonstrate your dishonesty in twisting the meaning of texts? Typical atheist. I would advise you to try to understand before you discredit. Failing that, it is better to use words such as non-descript and gibberish (illustrating a lack of understanding) in your post rather than absurd... though it amounts to nothing anyway.

Well, also like I said, I'm talking to you, not the site owner, so its your opinions that matter not his. What you believe in is what I'm interested in really; you give me feedback and hint at pascal's wager all you want, he/she doesn't. Try writing down your own conclusions or the explanations you think are most credible.

As I stated, I remain ambivalent. Either way, I don't demand your opinion on whatever is presented... your opinion matters to you and you alone - it will determine your fate - not mine. And be fair, I don't demand any conclusions from you (after that "When Is Jesus Coming" conclusion who would?) when you faithfully quote texts from atheists without understanding them in any entirety; then celebrate your (and... mine?) "stupidity" and "ignorance" when the situation is revealed in your errors. I read and form my own conclusions, where more investigation is needed, I remain ambivalent - I will not be swayed either way. You still haven't answered the question of the significance of Mary being of Levitic heritage. As was stated, in all my ignorance may you enlighten me?

Brushing aside your INCORRECT, IMPERTINENT and BASELESS judgements of what I believe:

It means your "rebuttal" or whatever was simply useless. Why don't you try going back to reread and coming up with something more sensible please?

Here we go again; you misread my post there... again.... what else do you misread (rhetorical)? I made no judgment wit regards to anything you believe; you demonstrate(d) that yourself. And refer to my post above about emotive language in a "debate". The size of the letters show nothing about INCORRECTNESS, OR IMPERTINENCE OR BASELESSNESS - they just show your emotive state. I don't debate, I inform (especially in this case) - I would advise you to do the same. Can you please inform me, then, of the significance of Mary being of Levitic heritage?

Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Unless you are saying Jesus was not a man? Or will you now postulate a double standard?

You've got it. There is really nothing to postulate here. The text actually advocates Jesus' obedience in His humanity. I wonder if you realise what you have quoted here. Notice the bolded parts? Jesus saves all, for all have sinned. That's what is stated. However sin is not taken into account where there is no law (sin of omission) - that may answer your question on all those who never knew of Jesus being condemned to hell. Thank you for that - you do a wonderful job in confirming a Christian's faith.

Interesting tactic but let us actually take a look at the implications therein:

Let us remember one thing: Your final question is not at all pertinent.

Really?

Do you forget that numbers are an invention of man?

The question was inherrently asked of you in the one your tried to answer (What is a number/pi?) in reference to Holy Spirit inspiration and pi and counting.

Therefore any attempt to relate the two instances immediately makes the author's statements about God His own invention thereby nullifying your argument. Nice try but no cigar.

Not in any particular sense. God existed before man and revealed Himself. Of course you may then state pi existed before man. Then I would challenge you to show me one instance where the number pi occurs in nature - not to mention a perfect circle. So let's just drop that blunder shall we?

Thank you for the lecture. Now instead of dabbling in order to avoid the question, why don't you just show me how Hosea's prophecy was fulfilled?

It was fullfilled as Matthew saw it. Due to the vague nature of the text, I will trust Matthew in his judgement. Is there any particular problem that you are hinting at here?