A Final Proof Against Christianity

http://lennhoff.com/geneology.htm
http://www.messiahtruth.com/jesusgen.html

Ok MarcAc. The discussion has gotten out of hand. In your response, please only restate your defense of the virgin birth (with respect to the links I provided and the arguments I have previously proposed). I am pleading with you to keep out statements like "you are an atheist", and "typical atheist" from the conversation. I would like to at least finish on the virgin birth before digressingas ourr conversation as it is now is in shambles.

P.S. I still listen to Christian music (and very much hope somewhere in me, as the user title says) and I am in no way an atheist. Hopefully that clears up the misunderstanding somewhat.
 
I will read your links Star...
-
Link 1.

The theory of Levirate Marraige which is proposed in the link of possible solutions is not the one that person is refuting. The one that person is refuting is quite new to me. The theory of Levirate Marraige does not address the Marraige between Mary and Joseph (why should it? - take as long as you want to come up with an answer), it addresses Joseph, seemingly, having two fathers, Jacob and Heli - those names aren't even mentioned on the webpage. I think the author needs to do a bit more research on the theories of Levirate Marraige - discounting one strange one doesn't discount them all. Also, your attempt to cast doubt on the reliability of the source of the plausible theory of Levirate Marraige, by referring to Julius Africanus believing the earth was flat back when everyone did(?) really adds to nor detracts from anything. I refer you to previous posts and you'll get the idea.

BTW...
  • You need not inform anyone but God of what type of music you listen to... His opinion is the only one that matters.
  • What would "I WANT TO BELIEVE" mean to God? Ever thought of it? If you wanted to believe you would believe. In X-Files (pertinent sidenote) "I WANT TO BELIEVE" inherrently means "[I BELIEVE BECAUSE] I WANT TO BELIEVE". What I advise you to do is make sure you read texts critically before you present them (to yourself and to others).
-
Link 2.
author said:
1) The virgin birth prevents Joseph from passing on his cursed lineage to Jesus, thereby allowing Jesus to sit on the throne. This is the answer proposed by apologists like Josh McDowell. Because the virgin birth undermines the notion of Jesus being the Messiah, one is forced to consider this as if Joseph passed on the genealogy through rights of adoption, even though such rights do not exist.
Click to expand...
The author needed to do a bit more research. Such rites do exist.

1 Chronicles 2 [NIV]
34. Sheshan had no sons-only daughters.
He had an Egyptian servant named Jarha.
35. Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha, and she bore him Attai.​

Him in verse 35 refers to Seshan which means, if the chapter it self is referenced that Seshan adopted his sevant, Jarha, as a son, and passed on his lineage. Otherwise the doubt he/she attempts to cast on the other "Christian Rebutals" either serve to highlight his/her seeming lack of grammatical knowledge or desparation to justify his/her position;
2) The claim is made that the curse was not to be taken literally. The beginning of Jeremiah 22:30 reads "Write ye this man childless, a man [that] shall not prosper in his days..." From this they point to the fact that Jeconiah did know prosperity, and that he did indeed have children, so that means G-d didn’t mean the curse to be as devastating as it actually is. This is pointing away from the end of verse 30. "For no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." This portion of the verse makes it clear what was meant. Jeconiah did indeed have children, but those children would be forbidden from sitting on the throne. "Write ye this man childless" is simply a metaphor here.
Click to expand...
Reading the verse in it's enirety along with the italicized parts he/she, strangely, isolated doesn't lead one to the "clear" conclusion. That reading doesn't indicate no one shall sit on the throne - it only indicates no one shall sit on the throne and proper.

All in all I think he/she does a wonderful job of presenting the Christian solutions to the trivialities (to me) of the prophecies, and genealogies. Any Christian who critically reads that webpage will come away thinking atheists really wishfully try to elliminate God from their existence.

Even the word God is explcitly avoided in both links. It displays an inherrent fear of God. Iherrent denial. Those three letters have such an effect... that they just can't stand it.

Thank you again Star., and as a point of information, nowhere was I defensive in my previous post - that was done simply to reveal one of the many characterestic tactics of 'debators'.
 
Last edited:
Well, I haven't read through this totally, so I don't know if this point has been made. If it has, it won't hurt to restate it...

In 1 corinthians, Paul says that the carnal mind cannot discern the things of the spirit. As Christians, we believe that there is a spirit, as well as a mind and a body to a person. In order to even remotely understand God and all the issues and concepts that surround him, he have to look at it with our spirit. The spirit is how God communicates with us too, as well as anything else mentioned. Now, not just any type of spirit, but a redemed spirt. Meaning, surrendering yourself to God, and letting him have his way in you life. Yes, things will be rough, but in Christianity, we belive, and I know, that the rewards will be great(heaven). I don't believe just because the bible says to, I believe because I have sensed (felt) God.

The point is, you can't fully understand the bible and what it says by just thinking about it, you have to pray, and seek God about it. There has to be a spirit to spirit connection with God. In order to have that connection, you must except Him into your life. It called taking a step of faith.
 
Southstar, I've come to a realization. Your point of focusing validation on immediate textual, or contextual support is fallacious. The authors of the Scriptures hadn't had in mind a compendium of writings by which to elucidate truth. Instead, the Scriptures as we know them, were chosen specifically for supportive materials of given theological issues. This was not only done with the NT, but also the OT, and even in subtexts of the OT. The Pentateuch, particularly Genesis, is a compilation of numerous sources, brought together not because of the intent in which they were written, but because of the materials which they contained that were held as true. Likewise, were the texts of the NT chosen specifically because of the materials that they contained. Hence, one would be foolish to simply examine contextual import to come to a summary conclusion concerning the truth of a given belief system. Those texts chosen were chosen for the fact that they supported a given belief system. Hence, it is worthwhile not to place sole examination in the Bible, but rather in all religious texts of whatever given Christian belief system you are examining. Likely, you will be moved to examine other religious texts written in the early birth of Christianity.
 
beyondtimeandspace said:
Southstar, I've come to a realization. Your point of focusing validation on immediate textual, or contextual support is fallacious.
Click to expand...

I warmly agree!

One does not believe in God because the Bible would be a reliable, consistent and obligatory knowledge about God.

One believes in the Bible because it tells you about God.

God is the only source of knowledge about God. Holy texts are testimonies of other people.
If you want to know God, you have to look to Him, not to other people.

Only after you have done that (ie. looked to Him), only then can testimonies of other people be of relevance and importance to you.
 
RosaMagika said:
I warmly agree!

One does not believe in God because the Bible would be a reliable, consistent and obligatory knowledge about God.

One believes in the Bible because it tells you about God.

God is the only source of knowledge about God. Holy texts are testimonies of other people.
If you want to know God, you have to look to Him, not to other people.

Only after you have done that (ie. looked to Him), only then can testimonies of other people be of relevance and importance to you.
Click to expand...

Well this may be because I was raised sola scriptura and taught that the Bible was 100% inerrant so I go at it with a different mindframe. The Bible (or at least the NT) teaches that Jesus is the way to God - which brings the counter argument that one cannot arrive at this information independently as you suggest (sans the Bible). Hence the Bible must be read in order to come to know God (otherwise how would we know about Jesus and His message).

More on this in a new thread I will be making on fideism.
 
Altaran said:
Well, I haven't read through this totally, so I don't know if this point has been made. If it has, it won't hurt to restate it...

In 1 corinthians, Paul says that the carnal mind cannot discern the things of the spirit. As Christians, we believe that there is a spirit, as well as a mind and a body to a person. In order to even remotely understand God and all the issues and concepts that surround him, he have to look at it with our spirit. The spirit is how God communicates with us too, as well as anything else mentioned. Now, not just any type of spirit, but a redemed spirt. Meaning, surrendering yourself to God, and letting him have his way in you life. Yes, things will be rough, but in Christianity, we belive, and I know, that the rewards will be great(heaven). I don't believe just because the bible says to, I believe because I have sensed (felt) God.

The point is, you can't fully understand the bible and what it says by just thinking about it, you have to pray, and seek God about it. There has to be a spirit to spirit connection with God. In order to have that connection, you must except Him into your life. It called taking a step of faith.
Click to expand...

Thank you Altaran.

I once had that "feeling" too but lost it and even though I prayed earnestly for it I never recieved it from God. Am I then to blame?
 
beyondtimeandspace said:
Southstar, I've come to a realization. Your point of focusing validation on immediate textual, or contextual support is fallacious. The authors of the Scriptures hadn't had in mind a compendium of writings by which to elucidate truth. Instead, the Scriptures as we know them, were chosen specifically for supportive materials of given theological issues. This was not only done with the NT, but also the OT, and even in subtexts of the OT. The Pentateuch, particularly Genesis, is a compilation of numerous sources, brought together not because of the intent in which they were written, but because of the materials which they contained that were held as true. Likewise, were the texts of the NT chosen specifically because of the materials that they contained. Hence, one would be foolish to simply examine contextual import to come to a summary conclusion concerning the truth of a given belief system. Those texts chosen were chosen for the fact that they supported a given belief system. Hence, it is worthwhile not to place sole examination in the Bible, but rather in all religious texts of whatever given Christian belief system you are examining. Likely, you will be moved to examine other religious texts written in the early birth of Christianity.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Protestants - Catholic vermin! ;)

Like I said maybe this is because of my upbringing but don't you agree sooner or later the NT's message is what makes the difference? Is it therefore not necessary to establish the accuracy of these truths or any truth for that matter? Or do you propose faith without inquiry; are we to believe the opinions of others as truth because they said so?
 
MarcAC said:

-
Link 1.

The theory of Levirate Marraige which is proposed in the link of possible solutions is not the one that person is refuting. The one that person is refuting is quite new to me. The theory of Levirate Marraige does not address the Marraige between Mary and Joseph (why should it? - take as long as you want to come up with an answer), it addresses Joseph, seemingly, having two fathers, Jacob and Heli - those names aren't even mentioned on the webpage. I think the author needs to do a bit more research on the theories of Levirate Marraige - discounting one strange one doesn't discount them all.
Click to expand...


First link compares the Law of Levirite marriage delineated in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and how it applies when two brothers have a common father. But you still haven't told me what your solution is.

BTW...
  • You need not inform anyone but God of what type of music you listen to... His opinion is the only one that matters.
  • What would "I WANT TO BELIEVE" mean to God? Ever thought of it? If you wanted to believe you would believe. In X-Files (pertinent sidenote) "I WANT TO BELIEVE" inherrently means "[I BELIEVE BECAUSE] I WANT TO BELIEVE". What I advise you to do is make sure you read texts critically before you present them (to yourself and to others).
Click to expand...

Think of it this way. You are trying to court a very beautiful girl whom you like. You try time and time again but she does not return your calls, does not make eye contact - you might as well not exist. Who then is at fault?

Link 2.
The author needed to do a bit more research. Such rites do exist.

1 Chronicles 2 [NIV]
34. Sheshan had no sons-only daughters.
He had an Egyptian servant named Jarha.
35. Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha, and she bore him Attai.​

Him in verse 35 refers to Seshan which means, if the chapter it self is referenced that Seshan adopted his sevant, Jarha, as a son, and passed on his lineage. Otherwise the doubt he/she attempts to cast on the other "Christian Rebutals" either serve to highlight his/her seeming lack of grammatical knowledge or desparation to justify his/her position;
Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't follow where in the chapter it says Sheshan's lineage was the one passed on.

Reading the verse in it's enirety along with the italicized parts he/she, strangely, isolated doesn't lead one to the "clear" conclusion. That reading doesn't indicate no one shall sit on the throne - it only indicates no one shall sit on the throne and proper.

All in all I think he/she does a wonderful job of presenting the Christian solutions to the trivialities (to me) of the prophecies, and genealogies. Any Christian who critically reads that webpage will come away thinking atheists really wishfully try to elliminate God from their existence.
Click to expand...


There you go again. The websites weren't even written by atheists.. But you haven't at all shown why Matthew did not blunder by including Jeconiah in the genealogy

Also according to verses like these, as the author states:

Numbers 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of [their] names, every male by their polls; (KJV)

Numbers 1:18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first [day] of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls. (KJV)

Genealogies are indeed traced through the father and not the mother - therefore you have also to solve how Joseph passed the Davidic lineage to Jesus.

You are also to show how Luke did not blunder by omitting Solomon from the genealogy since as the author shows, he is a key link in the royal ancestry.

Even the word God is explcitly avoided in both links. It displays an inherrent fear of God. Iherrent denial. Those three letters have such an effect... that they just can't stand it.
Click to expand...

Again - they are NOT atheists.

P.S. A reminder - you are also yet to provide your solution to these apparent "difficulties".
 
§outh§tar said:
Like I said maybe this is because of my upbringing but don't you agree sooner or later the NT's message is what makes the difference? Is it therefore not necessary to establish the accuracy of these truths or any truth for that matter? Or do you propose faith without inquiry; are we to believe the opinions of others as truth because they said so?
Click to expand...

Of course the NT message makes a grand difference, but there were many texts written in and around that era that were not included as part of it. Why? Because those texts lent support to belief systems that weren't part of the belief system of the official Christian Church of the time. Hence, one must examine the reasons that those texts were included, rather than SIMPLY what the intent of the author was (which may be ascertained per the individual texts themselves). Indeed, establish the accuracy of truths. Faith should not be taken blindly, but definitely with inquiry. Not a doubting inquiry, but a curious one. No, don't believe because "they" say so, examine their work yourself. Not simply the Bible, but the works written by those who brought the belief systems of Christianity to solidification, so as to follow their reasoning, and decide for yourself whether their scholarship is worthy of trust.
 
§outh§tar said:
Thank you Altaran.

I once had that "feeling" too but lost it and even though I prayed earnestly for it I never recieved it from God. Am I then to blame?
Click to expand...

To be honest, I'm not sure. The advice I would have is to keep pressing into Him. Also, get others to constantly pray for you. Talk to a pastor you trust about it. I will be praying for you too!
 
§outh§tar said:
But you still haven't told me what your solution is.
Click to expand...
My solution is between me and God. My solution is the faith that God has allowed me through grace and thus I will continue to review the proposed solutions. The information is there; it is for you to review and find your solution. Failing that, you will continue digging, eventually becoming a stellar corpse.
 
If there had ever been a state in which there was nothing, then that state would have continued forever. First Cause isn't limited to the laws of It's creation.
 
Altaran: To be honest, I'm not sure. The advice I would have is to keep pressing into Him. Also, get others to constantly pray for you. Talk to a pastor you trust about it. I will be praying for you too!
*************
M*W: ...and I will be praying for you, too, SouthStar!
 
Whip Stevens said:
The existance of God is the First Truth on which all truth depends.He is the all sufficient All Truth.
Click to expand...

AKA the great cop-out when we are too lazy/afraid/ignorant.. to probe anymore. Not to belittle since I am currently doing a similar thing in Philosophy.
 
MarcAC said:
My solution is between me and God. My solution is the faith that God has allowed me through grace and thus I will continue to review the proposed solutions. The information is there; it is for you to review and find your solution. Failing that, you will continue digging, eventually becoming a stellar corpse.
Click to expand...

MarcAC,

Since your "solution" to these apparent problems has obviously been enough to sustain your faith, prithee tell me what it is so I can also share in your joy and understanding. Selfishness isn't helping me.
 
Medicine Woman said:
Altaran: To be honest, I'm not sure. The advice I would have is to keep pressing into Him. Also, get others to constantly pray for you. Talk to a pastor you trust about it. I will be praying for you too!
*************
M*W: ...and I will be praying for you, too, SouthStar!
Click to expand...

Will you both be praying to the same God?
 
§outh§tar: Will you both be praying to the same God?
*************
M*W: Not exactly. Altaran will be praying to the white-bearded distant fearful god you used to know. I will be praying to the God that dwells in you.
 
SouthStar,


Carefully look at what MarcAC said:


"My solution is between me and God. My solution is the faith that God has allowed me through grace and thus I will continue to review the proposed solutions. The information is there; it is for you to review and find your solution. Failing that, you will continue digging, eventually becoming a stellar corpse."


Your solution SoutStar, is between *you* and God, it is for *you* to review and find *your* solution.


I can imagine that this line of thinking seems like some cop-out to you. But there is no obligatory recipe for faith.

I don't mean to criticize you, but I do think that you need more confidence in yourself.

Always looking for answers outside yourself is a way of avoiding having confidence in yourself -- as it seems safe and comfortable to find inconsistencies, fallacies and all that garbage outside yourself. But looking for answers this way will not make you happy, nor will you establish a meaningful relationship with God. And you do seem to want a meaningful relationship with God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top