Christ Genealogy Debunks Christiany

[Faithofchristian]

It's only fundies and New Atheist types who get excitable over literal interpretations of scripture.

This coincidence doesn't seem all that surprising to me as the 2 groups are far more alike than they would like to think.

Yes and the other question is, Why do Atheists concern themselves about God, that they the Atheists don't believe in?
No matter what Religious site you go into you always find Atheists there, Why is that?

Seeing Atheists don't believe in God, But yet Atheists concern themselves with a God they don't believe in ?

Why is it that Atheists concern themselves more about a God, that they don't believe in, More than the average religious person does.

 

[Tomas Kindahl]

First let's start with your first question,
( but in order to debunk Christianity itself, you have to 1. identify the basic assumptions of Christianity, such as for example that Jesus is the Son of God and died on the cross)
If Jesus did not die on the cross then Christianity would not be here today.

Now to answer your second question,
( That Jesus is the son of God)

Let's see what kind of answer you will have. Seeing Jesus is the Son of God, How is Jesus then God?

You say ( Disproving some singular text by discovering a contradiction, is nothing like disproving an entire religion)

What do you have in a contradiction and disproving an entire religion?

I don't quite understand what you are asking for. There was a guy (the post starter) that thought he had debunked Christianity by finding one single contradiction in the texts. I wanted to help him by explaining to him how to do it, and why it is an immensely hard task to debunk Christianity, hinting to him that it is an unnecessarily complicated task, and that he need to understand Christianity.

Are you asking me to debunk Christianity?!! Nope, I won't do it. Too complicated, and I won't afford the waste of effort, despite that I'm able to. But you, on the other hand, could start to define for yourself what Christianity is, what behaviors it requests from its adherents, and explain why these behaviors is a good thing. Christianity is under attack, if you can find a good reason to defend it, then Christianity may be preserved.

 

[Desert Snake]

If the genealogy of Jesus is so fabricated, then so is the validity of him being the prognosticated Messiah....Right?

Jesus doesn't say it isn't fabricated, however, Jesus does not make the claim, either.

Matthew 22:45

 

[pearl]

Why is it that Atheists concern themselves more about a God, that they don't believe in, More than the average religious person does.

The answer is simple, its lends itself to popular debate, to sound off.

 

[Looncall]

Yes and the other question is, Why do Atheists concern themselves about God, that they the Atheists don't believe in?
No matter what Religious site you go into you always find Atheists there, Why is that?

Seeing Atheists don't believe in God, But yet Atheists concern themselves with a God they don't believe in ?

Why is it that Atheists concern themselves more about a God, that they don't believe in, More than the average religious person does.

Because religions produce harms.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I don't quite understand what you are asking for. There was a guy (the post starter) that thought he had debunked Christianity by finding one single contradiction in the texts. I wanted to help him by explaining to him how to do it, and why it is an immensely hard task to debunk Christianity, hinting to him that it is an unnecessarily complicated task, and that he need to understand Christianity.

Are you asking me to debunk Christianity?!! Nope, I won't do it. Too complicated, and I won't afford the waste of effort, despite that I'm able to. But you, on the other hand, could start to define for yourself what Christianity is, what behaviors it requests from its adherents, and explain why these behaviors is a good thing. Christianity is under attack, if you can find a good reason to defend it, then Christianity may be preserved.

My defense of Christianity would be, In all the other Religion's that there is.
Christianity is the only Religion that stands out bearing the name of Christ.
Christ = Christian.
So it becomes a High Honor to bear the name of Christ = Christian, The Son of God as a Christian Forefront.
How many other Religions can claim that ?
And to think Christianity has been doing this for nearly little over 2000 years. How many other Religions can claim that ?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Because religions produce harms.

Well it seems that Atheists produce as much harm As anyone else. Heck Atheists can't even get along with each other let alone with anyone else. What's that all about.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes and the other question is, Why do Atheists concern themselves about God, that they the Atheists don't believe in?
No matter what Religious site you go into you always find Atheists there, Why is that?

Seeing Atheists don't believe in God, But yet Atheists concern themselves with a God they don't believe in ?

Why is it that Atheists concern themselves more about a God, that they don't believe in, More than the average religious person does.

I can't speak for all atheists, but I think people should be fairly informed as to the given reasons why Christianity ought to be dismissed from a practical and relevant standpoint.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Because religions produce harms.

Well it seems that Atheists produce as much harm as anyone else. Heck Atheists can't even get along with each other, Let alone with anyone else.What's that all about.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I can't speak for all atheists, but I think people should be fairly informed as to the given reasons why Christianity ought to be dismissed from a practical and relevant standpoint.

Why is that?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why is that?

Because there's really nothing going on in the real world that would validate any of the claims made by either the text of the Bible, or people themselves.

Christianity may provide an oasis or a source of comfort, but it shouldn't be applied to anything that extends past a person's thoughts and feelings.

A good example would be the various accounts of people denying medical treatment on a basis of belief. I'm sure most of heard about these types of things. It's a very irresponsible and reckless action. Especially if it's encouraged by clergy Etc.

People should be educated on the dangers of doing that and keeping religions like Christianity among other faith-based religions in perspective for what they are.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Because there's really nothing going on in the real world that would validate any of the claims made by either the text of the Bible, or people themselves.

Christianity may provide an oasis or a source of comfort, but it shouldn't be applied to anything that extends past a person's thoughts and feelings.

A good example would be the various accounts of people denying medical treatment on a basis of belief. I'm sure most of heard about these types of things. It's a very irresponsible and reckless action. Especially if it's encouraged by clergy Etc.

People should be educated on the dangers of doing that and keeping religions like Christianity among other faith-based religions in perspective for what they are.

You know what, you can not blame all Christians base on what another may do.

Those Christians who holds back whether it's their child or anyone else in having medical attention goes directly and indirectly against the teachings of Christ Jesus.

Jesus said in Luke 5:31--"And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick"

Therefore to hold back anyone in need of a physician goes against Jesus.

And if a Christian is caught doing this, that Christian better have a good answer when they meet Christ Jesus on Judgement day.
Why their going against Jesus teaching of a Physician.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Specific ages and names shouldn't be taken literally, then nothing has to be taken literally in the Bible...Right?

No. Of course, I'm speaking on behalf of intelligent Christians, quoting an intelligent man. If you can't follow me, I can do nothing but sympathise.

As I posted, Augustine said that the Bible was God's word on religion and ethics. In other words, that's what is to be taken literally.

Jesus was lucky not to have the audience he'd have if he were posting here. Whenever he finished a parable, there'd be some-one to ask "Exactly where did you get that story about the Samaritan? Did it mention his name, or that of the man he helped?"

 

[Samantha Rinne]

As I've noted elsewhere in some other discussions about Christianity, Jesus's family tree has a time span of 77 generations listed between his generation and Adam whom the Bible claims was the "first man". Reference: (Matthew 1:1-16 & Luke 3:23-38)

However, the Australian aborigines have evidently been in Australia for over a thousand consecutive generations. Reference: Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia

There have been hundreds of generations of Native Americans between the time their common ancestry migrated from Asia until the time of Christ.
Reference: Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

The Bible falsely claims there were only 77 generations between Christ and the first man; when people have indeed actually existed for thousands of generations, which proves the Bible and Christianity as being false. Right?

I'm always amused when someone says they can "debunk" an entire religion with a few facts.

You are debunking one premise, not the core teaching, which is that Jesus is Savior and died for our sins.

Let's talk about "the first man."

Genesis 2 & 3 talk about Adam and Eve. Genesis 4 talks about Cain killing Abel, and being driven out. But hold up.

Genesis 4:16-19

Several other families are mentioned. Several other WOMEN come out of nowhere to marry Enoch, Cain, and so on. Where did these people come from? Obviously, they weren't the first man and woman. They were an archetypal man and woman. First, as in being truest to a model, not first in chronology. Lemme explain. The Bible also mentions the "first fruits" meaning very best ones. Adam and Eve, were there to explain "why are humans like they are? Why do they call things 'good' and 'evil' instead of just 'okay'? Why do we try to do stuff, screw up, and hate ourselves? Why are we male and female? Why are we physical creatures, not spirits flying around?" Stuff like that.

Debunks Christianity indeed. Why does it matter if 77 generations or 777 generations of people were there? First, this is being super-literal missing the actual point of two different religions. Second, if Jesus is both God and Man, as we learned in church, trying to pin a "birth date" on him is completely stupid. John 1 says, "1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning." And just to drive home that the Word is Jesus, it says, "14The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

How can an immortal Son of God have a specific date of birth? Answer: he can't. Jesus has always been with us.

Jesus in comparative mythology - Wikipedia

-Mithra
-Buddha
-Tammuz
-Osiris
-Etc
-Hell, he is STILL appearing in mythic figures like Luke Skywalker (until the Last Jedi, mrgrgrgr...) and Superman

The many faces of Jesus from an Jungian view

Jesus comes to preach to us, and to be with us. Not just circa 0 A.D. but since the very beginning. And Jesus will be there at our end too. You claim so much, yet understand so little, about what Christ is really about. Maybe there was a Jesus at around this date. But if there weren't, if the genealogy is off, this does literally nothing to disprove Christianity.

C.S. Lewis in fact warns about obsessing about the "historical Jesus" in the Screwtape Letters. To put Jesus into a historical era is to fail to understand the divinity of Jesus.

If you want to attack Christianity, you'll have to prove that Jesus isn't a Savior.

 

[Salvador]

I never liked an all of nothing approach to the Bible. One point in the Bible being correct does not confirm it and one point in the Bible being wrong does not refute it. Though some literalists act as if one wrong point would refute the book.

I wonder if the OP is an ex-literalist.

I'm an ex-Christian who did what most Christians do, which is pick and choose what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts of the Bible were intended as some sort of parable or metaphor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm an ex-Christian who did what most Christians do, which is pick and choose what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts of the Bible were intended as some sort of parable or metaphor.

It is amazing how many Christians do not realize that they pick and choose. And since they do that is why one flaw in the Bible cannot refute it. They will merely pick not to use that part of the Bible if they recognize the error.

 

[Salvador]

First let's start with your first question,
( but in order to debunk Christianity itself, you have to 1. identify the basic assumptions of Christianity, such as for example that Jesus is the Son of God and died on the cross)
If Jesus did not die on the cross then Christianity would not be here today.

Now to answer your second question,
( That Jesus is the son of God)

Let's see what kind of answer you will have. Seeing Jesus is the Son of God, How is Jesus then God?

You say ( Disproving some singular text by discovering a contradiction, is nothing like disproving an entire religion)

What do you have in a contradiction and disproving an entire religion?

Wrong. It just proves that not everything in the Bible and in Christianity is literally true, for example those genealogies. One can find more errors in the Bible and in Christianity, but in order to debunk Christianity itself, you have to 1. identify the basic assumptions of Christianity, such as for example that Jesus is the Son of God and died on the cross, and 2. then prove that those basic assumptions creates a flawed thought system that counteracts the Christian agenda, and damages its adherents in some fundamental way. Disproving some singular text by discovering a contradiction, is nothing like disproving an entire religion.

Adam as being the first man and perpetrator of original sin is an important premise of Christianity. If Adam wasn't the first man, then there isn't actually any "origin sin". Jesus supposedly died on the Cross to save humankind from "original sin". If there isn't any "original sin" from which to be saved, then Jesus Christ's death on the Cross is pretty pointless and meaningless. Evidently, there were many generations of people prior to the 76th generation before Christ spawned by Adam. So then, Adam, Eve and original sin are mythological. There is neither any "first man" nor "original sin" throughout human evolution. Thus, Jesus Christ having died on the cross to save mankind from "original sin" is not reality but is rather mythological.

 

[Salvador]

I'm always amused when someone says they can "debunk" an entire religion with a few facts.

You are debunking one premise, not the core teaching, which is that Jesus is Savior and died for our sins.

Let's talk about "the first man."

Genesis 2 & 3 talk about Adam and Eve. Genesis 4 talks about Cain killing Abel, and being driven out. But hold up.

Genesis 4:16-19

Several other families are mentioned. Several other WOMEN come out of nowhere to marry Enoch, Cain, and so on. Where did these people come from? Obviously, they weren't the first man and woman. They were an archetypal man and woman. First, as in being truest to a model, not first in chronology. Lemme explain. The Bible also mentions the "first fruits" meaning very best ones. Adam and Eve, were there to explain "why are humans like they are? Why do they call things 'good' and 'evil' instead of just 'okay'? Why do we try to do stuff, screw up, and hate ourselves? Why are we male and female? Why are we physical creatures, not spirits flying around?" Stuff like that.

Debunks Christianity indeed. Why does it matter if 77 generations or 777 generations of people were there? First, this is being super-literal missing the actual point of two different religions. Second, if Jesus is both God and Man, as we learned in church, trying to pin a "birth date" on him is completely stupid. John 1 says, "1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning." And just to drive home that the Word is Jesus, it says, "14The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

How can an immortal Son of God have a specific date of birth? Answer: he can't. Jesus has always been with us.

Jesus in comparative mythology - Wikipedia

-Mithra
-Buddha
-Tammuz
-Osiris
-Etc
-Hell, he is STILL appearing in mythic figures like Luke Skywalker (until the Last Jedi, mrgrgrgr...) and Superman

The many faces of Jesus from an Jungian view

Jesus comes to preach to us, and to be with us. Not just circa 0 A.D. but since the very beginning. And Jesus will be there at our end too. You claim so much, yet understand so little, about what Christ is really about. Maybe there was a Jesus at around this date. But if there weren't, if the genealogy is off, this does literally nothing to disprove Christianity.

C.S. Lewis in fact warns about obsessing about the "historical Jesus" in the Screwtape Letters. To put Jesus into a historical era is to fail to understand the divinity of Jesus.

If you want to attack Christianity, you'll have to prove that Jesus isn't a Savior.

Adam as being the first man and perpetrator of original sin is an important premise of Christianity. If Adam wasn't the first man, then there isn't actually any "origin sin". Jesus supposedly died on the Cross to save humankind from "original sin". If there isn't any "original sin" from which to be saved, then Jesus Christ's death on the Cross is pretty pointless and meaningless. Evidently, there were many generations of people prior to the 76th generation before Christ spawned by Adam. So then, Adam, Eve and original sin are mythological. There is neither any "first man" nor "original sin" throughout human evolution. Thus, Jesus Christ having died on the cross to save mankind from "original sin" is not reality but is rather mythological.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Adam as being the first man and perpetrator of original sin is an important premise of Christianity. If Adam wasn't the first man, then there isn't actually any "origin sin". Jesus supposedly died on the Cross to save humankind from "original sin". If there isn't any "original sin" from which to be saved, then Jesus Christ's death on the Cross is pretty pointless and meaningless. Evidently, there were many generations of people prior to the 76th generation before Christ spawned by Adam. So then, Adam, Eve and original sin are mythological. There is neither any "first man" nor "original sin" throughout human evolution. Thus, Jesus Christ having died on the cross to save mankind from "original sin" is not reality but is rather mythological.

Here's what you said ( Adam as being the first man and perpetrator of original sin is an important premise of Christianity)

My answer to this, Not for this Christian it isn't.

Adam is not the first man, neither did Adam commit the original sin.

Adam wasn't created until after the 7th day but on the next day following the 7th day
Which we call Sunday.

The first male and female created on the 6th day. Two days before Adam and Eve were created

As for the original sin, Satan committed the original sin. Way before Adam and Eve were created.

 

[Salvador]

Here's what you said ( Adam as being the first man and perpetrator of original sin is an important premise of Christianity)

My answer to this, Not for this Christian it isn't.

Adam is not the first man, neither did Adam commit the original sin.

Adam wasn't created until after the 7th day but on the next day following the 7th day
Which we call Sunday.

The first male and female created on the 6th day. Two days before Adam and Eve were created

As for the original sin, Satan committed the original sin. Way before Adam and Eve were created.

The Bible implies that Adam was the first biological man—in Genesis 1-5; Deuteronomy 32:8; 1 Chronicles 1:1; Luke 3:38; Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45;1 Timothy 2:13 and Jude 1:14. . So, how many parts of the Bible are you willing to concede as being ‘errant’, or in need of ‘reinterpreting’, in order to accommodate the scientifically proven evolutionary history of humans?