₦airaland Forum

Where in the bible does it say that the lineage of Jesus was traced through his mother and then through his surrogate father? WHERE in the bible was it written?. . . .The problem is when the unknown authors of Matthew and Luke were writing their fables they did not know that their two different accounts of events will be put together into a book in the future. . . .The author of the book of Mathew wrote his fabled lineage of Jesus differently from that of the author of Luke any body that tries to say one was through his mother and the other through is surrogate father is lying because the bible does NOT say so. . . . .

You are right there appears to be a contradiction between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke and the argument has gone on for ages.

Joseph could not have had 2 physical fathers but 1 physical father and 1 father in law that's why we came to the conclusion that it was mary's lineage that was being described by luke.
I do not have conclusive proof for my opinion on the lineage but I also do not have conclusive proof that my opinion is wrong.

The major point of the genealogies was to confirm that Jesus came from the lineage of David.
We have other sources that seem to confirm that Jesus indeed came from the lineage of David.   He was referred to as ", Jesus thou son of David, "

I hope I've answered your question sir.

Who is this one? Why is this dude self projecting himself as God and deluding himself?. . .  .Firstly there is NO where in the bible where the bible God talks about free will. . .Free will is NOT biblical but a creation of the priest and Church tradition. . .Jesus, God or the prophets of the bible NEVER talked about free will, Free will is just a concept that was developed to help the clergy explain away things. . . .

When did any God tell you that he does not know what decision a human being will make even though he knows all the decisions the human being can make?    . . . . . .Is it not the bible that talks about God knowing the inner most thoughts of every body? How then did you come to the ridiculous conclusion that the said God does not know what decision the people will make? when the same bible talks about God having the ability to make people do things they themselves don't want to do by hardening their minds. . . . . .

Biblical justification for free will.
Deu 30:19  I call Heaven and Earth to witness against you today: I place before you Life and Death, Blessing and Curse. Choose life so that you and your children will live.

Rev 3:20  "Look at me. I stand at the door. I knock. If you hear me call and open the door, I'll come right in and sit down to supper with you.

God cannot say He has placed choices before you if you don't have free will to choose. We can only speak of choice if there is free will.

God says he knows the innermost thoughts of our minds. True. The point is even we do not know the choice we will make until we make the choice.
A person can PLAN to make a choice, but does not know for certain what choice he will make, YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR MIND

Therefore that God knows our innermost thoughts does not mean He knows for certain what we will choose.

I hope I have answered your question.

@ op nice courage. Let me also add to Enigma's post. Do u know a little about science? I asked cos there might be some overzealous goon that thinks 'they know too much' and would never see things your own way even though u might be right. If u can stick with Enigma's advice, u might come out tops. Good try though.

Well I know enough science to know that science itself does not have the answers, Science has a myriad of unproven theories about the origin of the universe and life. If they start proving their throries empirically then they can have a case.

Thanks for the advice. I intend to keep it.

Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of "divine transcendence" and "faith," and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:

"You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned."

If such arguments are good enough for Yahweh, they are good enough for Her Invisible Pinkness.

I concur!
Christians should please endeavour as the bible advises to ", Give an answer to those that ask us the reasons for our hope, " rather than just expecting people to have blind faith in a concept they do not understand.

(1Pe 3:15) but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason of the hope in you, with meekness and fear;

A God who knows everything cannot have emotions

A God who knows everything that can POSSIBLY happen can have emotions!
It is possible that a plane can crash! Why then do we feel any emotion when a particular plane crashes?

The reason God was angry with Adam was that the probability that Adam would sin was very remote given everything Adam had.
This is analogous to a son who is given the best education but still ends up a poor man!

The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them

The above quote is fallacious and misleading.
The prophecy in Isaiah 7 was fulfilled EXACTLY as it was predicted.

Please post any contradictions you find in the fulfilment of the prophecy.

The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?

I do not see any confusion as to who Esau's wives are.
(Gen 26:34) And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite;
(Gen 28:9) then Esau went to Ishmael, and took Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to the wives which he had for his wife.

Timnah was the name of a person and soon became the name of a place, I do not see any contradiction!

The lineage of Jesus was traced through his mother and then through his surrogate father. That explains the lineage through Solomon and the one through Nathan.

One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, despoiled, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.

The quote from Ezekiel 18 that includes the assurance that sons will no more DIE for the sins of their fathers is too long to post here.
The passage has to be read in context for proper understanding and of course it comes AFTER all the events posted above.
Also note that the bible says NO MORE that means it acknowledges that this was the case before.

Punishing a son for the sin of his father may be a wrong thing to do but we must realise that the punishment most times is not direct punishment which can be said to be wrong . Most of the times (and that's what the bible is refering to) it is indirect punishment as in the case of a spoilt family name.
Realise that everyone in Nigeria received some form of indirect punishment for the sin of AbdulMuttallab the underwear bomber!

Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.

The above statement is based on the fallacious premise that revealing His perfect will directly to each of us would produce a much different response.

God revealed His will to Adam DIRECTLY but yet Adam disobeyed!

The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us.

Yes, God can by a mere act of will eliminate all human suffering but in so doing God will self destruct as eliminating all human suffering is an unjust decision. It may be a kind decision from a human point of view but it is not a JUST decision. God is not only a KIND God. God is a JUST God.

When there is a crime, there has to be punishment. That is Justice.

Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.

If they do not ACCEPT the gospel of Jesus Christ,
You cannot ACCEPT what you have not heard, therefore people who have not heard the gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be condemned based on whether they accepted Jesus or not.
The bible supports my argument. See the following verses below.

(Act 10:34) Then Peter opened his mouth and said, Truly I see that God is no respecter of persons;

(Act 10:35) but in every nation he who fears Him and works righteousness is accepted with Him.

God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.

The debate should be whether SIN is finite or infinite. I would argue that SIN is actually infinite.
Eating a fruit that you have been told not to eat is a very forgiveable offense but when the consequence of eating that fruit is the corruption of the entire EARTH then it is no more the same as being merely disobedient. Every sin committed corrupts the earth more!
The problem is that you do not know the real consequence of sin!
This is also consistent with the fact that God had to "Create" another human Jesus Christ to come and die in our place to atone for SIN

God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.

God is not omniscient in the way that most people say He is. If he was then the above quote holds true.

In my opinion, God knows all things in that he knows all the possible outcomes of all the possible decisions that all humans can ever make.
God does not know what decision a human being WILL make even though He knows all the decisions the human being CAN make. If God knows the decision that I WILL make then I do not really have free will.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

God does not have free will in the same way we have free will.
The day God makes a wrong decision the universe as we know it will collapse.
Imagine what would happen if gravity stopped beign gravity as we know it.

Humans were created after his likeness. As soon as humans made a wrong decision they lost the image of God but since they are not in the same order as God the universe did not self destruct like what would happen if God makes a wrong decision

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

The accurate statement is that for there to be love there must be freewill. It's not a question of happiness but one of love.
You cannot love something except you are free not to love that thing.

What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. [ If "can come" means "can be born from" then this statement is CORRECT]
What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect. [If perfect means complete then this statement is FALSE]

God created a perfect universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans.
A more accurate statement is "God created a good EARTH which was rendered BAD by humans who though created GOOD had become BAD because they were detached from the good GOD by taking a decision which they knew would detach them from the GOOD GOD"

A good tree can only bring forth good fruit, but a good fruit that is detached from the good tree will soon go bad.

Humans are not the children of God in the same sense that a fruit is the "child" of a tree.

If a genius creates a device does that automatically make the device created a genius?

The bible says humans were created GOOD not PERFECT! In fact, soon after God created Adam the first Man he soon said the words ", It is not good, "

let me start by posting some of my replies on other posts.

What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.

A creator would have been creating for as long as He was a creator.
The bible did not say God was all that existed back then. It doesn't even speak in clear terms as to what existed back then. Get your facts straight!
The bible does not say God only created Humans. There have been other creations,  Angels and beings in other dimensions.
God can be perfect in himself yet choose to create something outside of himself.
You don't do all you do out of a need to do it. You chose to post stuff on Niaraland,  Posting on Nairaland is not a necessity for survival.

I just want to offer my 2 cents.

I am not perfect I just want to offer some of my explanations and learn more from everyone.
I am not a professor of theology or religion.

I am a person who believes that faith is not antithetical to reason!

I know it may be impossible to convince everyone I just want to offer my opinion and learn from the opinions of others. It is up to each person to draw his/her conclusions.

Anyone with doubts concerning the christian faith can post them on the topic at the link below.


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-552049.0.html

Anyone with doubts concerning the Christian faith can post them on the topic with the link below.


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-552049.0.html

I may not be able to continue answering questions as I cannot be on too many posts at the same time.
I'll appreciate it if questions for me can be directed to the following topic

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-552049.0.html

I have created a post specifically for questions.
I have tried to answer huxleys questions but I realized that most of the topics are at least a year old so I think it's better to create a new one.
If you can find huxley please direct him to the post. thanks

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-552049.0.html

I have created a new topic for questions directed to me.
I think it's a more efficient way to answer questions.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-552049.0.html

I have answered questions on various posts in response to doubts concerning the christian faith. I do not claim to know all the answers but I have done some research over the past 10 years and I'd like to help anyone with genuine doubts as much as God will help me.

Everyone is free to post their doubts regardless of religious inclinations.

Special invitation to huxley. (I like the similarity to Thomas Huxley, Darwin's bulldog if I remember clearly)
Special invitation to easylogic
Special invitation to Deep Sight

Special invitation to all the frequent posters on the religion section (I am new so I don't know everyone)

No atheists or evolutionists believe that aeroplanes are constructed that way. Theydo accurately point out, though, that snowflakes, despite being beautiful, etc, weren't formed by dancing goblins. That probably explains why "although the fool says in his heart that there is no god, the wise declare it out loud.

We understand how snowflakes are formed and can repeat it experimentally.
We do not understand the big bang theory and cannot repeat it experimentally.
therefore you cannot use the snowflakes phenomena as a justification for the creation of a complex universe from a big bang.

What do you think explains the fact humans and apes share 99% of DNA? I think this is a fact that deserve an explanation.

For instance, you and your siblings share a great deal of DNA than you and me. Now, how would you explain the fact that you and your siblings have a great deal of DNA in common?

An explanation for this is that God the creator could have created it that way!
Windows XP SP1 and Windows XP SP2 have many things (almost 99%) in common. Does that mean that windows XP SP1 evolved (by itself) into Windows XP SP2?

A creator can create things anyway he wishes.
the major difference between humans and animals is not physical. It is meta-physical.
Have you ever wondered why No ape has invented anything?
Invention starts with imagination which is not just a physical phenomena.
Imagination includes the ability to create what has never been in existence No animal to the best of my knowledge has the power to imagine.

God is not a tangible entity - and as such we cannot speak of any sort of "house" for God in any terms.

God is a Spirit but He may be able to assume a tangible form.

You must be kidding,right? If the jewish God's graphically chronicled monstrous deeds in the bible are deemed to be unverifiable, then you are denying, and in a blatant fashion, the innerancy of the bible itself. It is all there in black and white. Your attempt at being disingenuous is rather clumsy at best. It is rather bizarre watching a religious person bend so far backwards to defend a monstrously evil deity. You better watch your back so as not to break it.

Please can you quote one "graphically chronicled monstrous deed" so we can analyse it.

You must be kidding,right? If the jewish God's graphically chronicled monstrous deeds in the bible are deemed to be unverifiable, then you are denying, and in a blatant fashion, the innerancy of the bible itself. It is all there in black and white. Your attempt at being disingenuous is rather clumsy at best. It is rather bizarre watching a religious person bend so far backwards to defend a monstrously evil deity. You better watch your back so as not to break it.

It is not the deeds that are unverifiable. What we do not know is the entire body of knowledge surrounding the events.
For example, we do not know for certain that the people we say are innocent are actually innocent.

I hope you understand now.

God is not a tangible entity - and as such we cannot speak of any sort of "house" for God in any terms.

Yes God is a spiritual being. He may not need a house but He can have a house where he puts beings that are not transcendent like him. For example, the earth is the home of humans in human form but when we die we move to another dimension (which we call the house of God).

You are right in saying that we probably shouldn't call it God's house but that's the best description we can give to it (heaven)

This actually destroys the logic I put forth earlier so a more correct version of the logic would be:
When we are alive we stay on the earth, when we die we go to another dimension = Heaven / Hell
This is a logical explanation for the existence of heaven, hell, heaven and hell or something in between heaven and Hell,

The logical explanation for the existence of a heaven as distinct from hell is that of justice. No amount of human suffering can really atone for SIN if SIN causes the corruption of both the sinner and the entire earth. Therefore, for justice to be maintained the sinner must suffer for eternity.
(P.S. the argument is not as complete or as fluid as I would like it to be)

Oh, the irony!
His user name is actually LOGIC1!!!

I hope any Irony has been dispelled.
If you have other questions please post them.

I call the annihilation of the innocents, whether with a sword or with a WMD brutal simply because it is so unnecessary. If you and your "God" cannot realize that, then hell is home

Since we do not have very much knowledge as human beings, it follows that what we may realise (if we had more knowledge) that something we  consider unnecessary may actually be necessary and vice versa.

The knowledge I am talking about when I say "if we had more knowledge" is not some spiritually fuzzy revelation, I'm saying if we had more hard empirically verifiable facts we may arrive at a different conclusion.

Therefore your statement above is at best an unverifiable stance and cannot be used logically to portray God as brutal.