Christ Genealogy Debunks Christiany

[robocop (actually)]

The beasts of the earth, means like elephants, cap Buffalo, giraffes, rhinos, hippopotamus, and the such being beasts of the earth.
The beast of the earth wasn't created until the 6th day of creation
Genesis 1:25.

That's alright... I was merely stating what the Raelians say. However I should add that if they were right about beasts, putting beasts on the same day would help their argument.

 

[Salvador]

Gosh, you mean......you can't take everything in the bible literally??!!! What an Earth-shattering insight. Why has nobody realised this before?

Oh, wait, Origen did back in 200AD.

Gosh, if you can neither take specific names nor ages mentioned in the Bible literally, then you're correct with not taking anything literally in the Bible.

 

[Faithofchristian]

That's alright... I was merely stating what the Raelians say. However I should add that if they were right about beasts, putting beasts on the same day would help their argument.[/QUOTE

Yes alot of people do that, not knowing in Genesis 1:25, the beast of the earth, is those large animals, like elephants, hippopotamus, rhinos, giraffes
, cape buffalo, and the such being the beast of the earth.

 

[Salvador]

The beasts of the earth, means like elephants, cap Buffalo, giraffes, rhinos, hippopotamus, and the such being beasts of the earth.
The beast of the earth wasn't created until the 6th day of creation
Genesis 1:25.

So was an Australian aborigine or native American, who existed in way earlier generations than the 76th generation before Christ that was spawned by Adam, an animal or person?

 

[Faithofchristian]

So was an Australian aborigine or native American, who existed in way earlier generations than the 76th generation before Christ that was spawned by Adam, an animal or person?

That all depends on what you consider animal and a person to be.


There are people in the world to day that Acts alot like animals. And there are animals that act more human than people do.
So it all depends.

 

[Salvador]

That all depends on what you consider animal and a person to be.


There are people in the world to day that Acts alot like animals. And there are animals that act more human than people do.
So it all depends.

So was a "well-behaved mild-mannered" Australian aborigine or native American, who existed in way earlier generations than the 76th generation before Christ that was spawned by Adam, an animal or person?

 

[Faithofchristian]

So was a "well-behaved mild-mannered" Australian aborigine or native American, who existed in way earlier generations than the 76th generation before Christ that was spawned by Adam, an animal or person?

So your actually talking about the
first earth age, When man was first upon the earth.

 

[siti]

a "well-behaved mild-mannered" Australian

Now you're really into the realms of mythology!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That all depends on what you consider animal and a person to be.


There are people in the world to day that Acts alot like animals. And there are animals that act more human than people do.
So it all depends.

There's only one correct answer to that question. Anything else is just vile racism.

 

[Faithofchristian]

There's only one correct answer to that question. Anything else is just vile racism.

Well I apologise to the animals.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well I apologise to the animals.

I mean the question of if Australian Aborigines and Native Americans are humans or not.

 

[Bear Wild]

More than that, the Messiah has to be patrilineally descended from David. Supposedly Jesus had no father.

IF he had no father what was Jesus's genetic make-up? Would he even have a y chromosome?

 

[exchemist]

Gosh, if you can neither take specific names nor ages mentioned in the Bible literally, then you're correct with not taking anything literally in the Bible.

Does that mean you think Origen cannot have been a Christian?

Look do you take anything in a novel or a play literally? Assuming you don't, do you then conclude that the novel or play has no meaning, conveys no truth and has no message for you?

 

[Salvador]

Does that mean you think Origen cannot have been a Christian?

Look do you take anything in a novel or a play literally? Assuming you don't, do you then conclude that the novel or play has no meaning, conveys no truth and has no message for you?

If Christ genealogy can't be taken literally, then neither should Christ resurrection be taken literally. If Christ resurrection never actually happened, then Christianity is pretty much useless. Time to find a better play with a more meaningful message. Right?

 

[exchemist]

If Christ genealogy can't be taken literally, then neither should Christ resurrection be taken literally. If Christ resurrection never actually happened, then Christianity is pretty much useless. Time to find a better play with a more meaningful message. Right?

Wrong. First, finding one item in the bible that can't be taken literally does not mean that none of it can be. Secondly, even if none of it were literally true, it could still have a valid message for humanity and as such would be far from worthless. The reported teaching and example of Jesus of Nazareth would still be inspirational.

 

[Faithofchristian]

If Christ genealogy can't be taken literally, then neither should Christ resurrection be taken literally. If Christ resurrection never actually happened, then Christianity is pretty much useless. Time to find a better play with a more meaningful message. Right?

Your right about what you said, Now let's take it just a little bit further, Now if Christ didn't Resurrected, Then Chrisianity would never haved came to be. Christianity would not even be here to day.
It's because of Christ's Resurrection that Chrisianity is here to day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. First, finding one item in the bible that can't be taken literally does not mean that none of it can be. Secondly, even if none of it were literally true, it could still have a valid message for humanity and as such would be far from worthless. The reported teaching and example of Jesus of Nazareth would still be inspirational.

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.

 

[Tomas Kindahl]

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?

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.

 

[Augustus]

Gosh, you mean......you can't take everything in the bible literally??!!! What an Earth-shattering insight. Why has nobody realised this before?

Oh, wait, Origen did back in 200AD.

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.

 

[Faithofchristian]

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.

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?