Bible Contradictions

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1021

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I did no such thing Chris, but at least we have it established… finally, that we do not have the same gospel. I cannot speak for anybody else here, but my mission is accomplished. I will not face the one true sovereign and holy God having watched His name and character impugned and dishonored while the practitioners of this most felonious of all crimes attempted to make some connection between myself and their pretended church of Christ.

I praise His exalted name that there will no tears after this life because it would be too much to bear watching the living God and His Christ cast so many religionists I loved on earth into outer darkness where there WILL be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

If you knew me in real life outside of these forums where you could see my face and hear my voice you would be convinced of how deeply this whole thing grieves me. The apostles would know nothing of your church except to command “come out of her my people” and the risen Christ, if He ever did have any concord with her, removed His lampstand centuries ago.

The God who is actually there, the God of the scriptures will consume your impostor like so much chaff in the furnace of his holiness. Turn and live while there is yet time my friend. The veil of this deception is descending further over your eyes all the time. I am not trying to make you guys angry. This is tearin my heart out.[/quote]

I hope you hold forth this arrogance before the Almighty, now that should be interesting.

You’ve done nothing good but perverted the Good Word of the Most High. Don’t flatter yourself to much. The problem is that you have failed misserably at proving any of your points. All you do is go on these mock spiritual diatribes that mean little more than you don’t understand what you’ve read.
You are no more chosen than anybody else in the entire world. The lowly, the poor and the suffering are held in higher esteem than all of us…Jesus said so, so get over yourself.

1022

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But, back to our debate, Pat. What you’re saying now is really in line with what I was saying before – that the pieces dont add up, so far as we know. I just disagree that the only conclusion is that a sentient being outside our universe created it. I think its far more likely that we just dont understand matter/energy well enough.

[/quote]
Well I would say your right about that, but we never will really understand it as well as we could. But it’s problematic in two ways, matter and energy run on principals and laws. They are ‘guide’ by something and always follow the rules. Whether we know what those rules are or not is another story, but if you know everything about M/E, you’ll see they are not in control of themselves. They do what they do, because they were designed to behave that way. What it does not do is remove the element of contingency.
If not God, something must have God like properties to create and beget. Not only matter and energy but the principles they follow. If it is not so it must be shown by either logic, or science how governed entities can suddenly create or beget.
What you can’t do is simply say that a quark or a string is creative force that by chance produced material that didn’t previously exist. Cosmology is a deductively solid argument, people have been trying to pick it apart for centuries.

Hawking would say that it’s gravity that became the ultimate creative force with his beloved M-Theory (a hybrid of string theory), but he doesn’t say how gravity got there, or even what it is.
Funny thing, nobody knows what gravity is. Now unlocking the secret to gravity is the key to a vast trough of knowledge or the biggest dead end in the history of science. That’s what that big Hadron Collider in Switzerland is for to try and unlock the secrets of gravity.

1023

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
You Christians and your cowardly semantics… =/[/quote]

As he hides behind a keyboard and an anonymous name and attacks our religion. You gotta love the Internet. It makes the weak strong and the truly cowardly brave.

You’re a funny little guy.

:)[/quote]

As oppossed to what you’ve been doing?[/quote]

I’m defending Christianity and the American way—I’m the good guy :slight_smile:

1024

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
“come out of her my people”[/quote]

haha…Whore of Babylon…Really? >>>[/quote]You made this connection and I couldn’t care less what Dave Hunt says about eschatology. He did us a general service with “The Seduction of Christianity” many years ago, but citing him in connection with me is an illicit presumption that I will overlook because I don’t really have any reason not to.

The great awakening which directly led to the conviction and courage of the revolution was pickled in Westminster Calvinism. The point is this isn’t MY bizarre new idiosyncratic theology. It IS the Christian theology of our founding. If you ever dare to research that you will find it to be the case. Catholicism was widely abhorred and you will certainly find that to the be case as well. That doesn’t make me right and you wrong in itself. It simply illustrates that what I’m saying, far from being anything weird or new was shared by the preponderance of Christendom in our early days and lo and behold we fought the mighty British crown in it’s power.

I found it interesting that Capped “clearly” sees you and Pat as having different conceptions of God. I read Aquinas. You should read Charnock and watch the true God of the scriptures come alive. I most assuredly do not worship a book, but you most assuredly do worship a church that hides the living God from it’s victims. Come out of her Chris and Pat too. And Katz, and Sloth, and Jake and Dixie Dude and Matty and Cortes and if I forgot anybody it wasn’t intentional. You are all in my prayers.

1025

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
“come out of her my people”[/quote]

haha…Whore of Babylon…Really? >>>[/quote]You made this connection and I couldn’t care less what Dave Hunt says about eschatology. He did us a general service with “The Seduction of Christianity” many years ago, but citing him in connection with me is an illicit presumption that I will overlook because I don’t really have any reason not to.

The great awakening which directly led to the conviction and courage of the revolution was pickled in Westminster Calvinism. The point is this isn’t MY bizarre new idiosyncratic theology. It IS the Christian theology of our founding. If you ever dare to research that you will find it to be the case. Catholicism was widely abhorred and you will certainly find that to the be case as well. That doesn’t make me right and you wrong in itself. It simply illustrates that what I’m saying, far from being anything weird or new was shared by the preponderance of Christendom in our early days and lo and behold we fought the mighty British crown in it’s power.

I found it interesting that Capped “clearly” sees you and Pat as having different conceptions of God. I read Aquinas. You should read Charnock and watch the true God of the scriptures come alive. I most assuredly do not worship a book, but you most assuredly do worship a church that hides the living God from it’s victims. Come out of her Chris and Pat too. And Katz, and Sloth, and Jake and Dixie Dude and Matty and Cortes and if I forgot anybody it wasn’t intentional. You are all in my prayers.
[/quote]

Please keep my name, or references to things I’ve said, out of your posts.

1026

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But, back to our debate, Pat. What you’re saying now is really in line with what I was saying before – that the pieces dont add up, so far as we know. I just disagree that the only conclusion is that a sentient being outside our universe created it. I think its far more likely that we just dont understand matter/energy well enough.

[/quote]
Well I would say your right about that, but we never will really understand it as well as we could. But it’s problematic in two ways, matter and energy run on principals and laws. They are ‘guide’ by something and always follow the rules. Whether we know what those rules are or not is another story, but if you know everything about M/E, you’ll see they are not in control of themselves. They do what they do, because they were designed to behave that way. What it does not do is remove the element of contingency.
If not God, something must have God like properties to create and beget. Not only matter and energy but the principles they follow. If it is not so it must be shown by either logic, or science how governed entities can suddenly create or beget.
What you can’t do is simply say that a quark or a string is creative force that by chance produced material that didn’t previously exist. Cosmology is a deductively solid argument, people have been trying to pick it apart for centuries.

Hawking would say that it’s gravity that became the ultimate creative force with his beloved M-Theory (a hybrid of string theory), but he doesn’t say how gravity got there, or even what it is.
Funny thing, nobody knows what gravity is. Now unlocking the secret to gravity is the key to a vast trough of knowledge or the biggest dead end in the history of science. That’s what that big Hadron Collider in Switzerland is for to try and unlock the secrets of gravity.
[/quote]

Ok, it seems we’ve gotten to the end of the cosmology debate, where we both agree we dont know, and neither of us can prove or disprove god in this way, only to say that our not knowing leads us to different conclusions.

I’m interested, though, you’ve said a few times that the bible is a book of truth, not of fact (that even if the historic events in the bible are innacurate, it’s still about certain truths).

Exactly what truths do you find in the bible?

1027

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Tiribulus, you’re really not even worth it.

Pat, thought occured to me - you say its stupid to say something came from nothing, but, unless you are suggesting a way that God created the universe other than making it from nothing, you’re saying “Something came from nothing because God can do that”.[/quote]

You make a very good point. What you can see here is that we ‘nose against the wall’ of human understanding. The true answer is I don’t know. Like BC said, by the very definition of omniscience, everything is on the table so did he create stuff with out stuff to make it out of? Maybe. Or did he make ‘it’ out of himself? That’s a possibility too.

This gets in to interesting territory. We’ll never really know the answer as long as we are alive. There are no witnesses, only smatterings of evidence. There are lots of postulations though.
In the quantum world, as I was discussing with forlife, the laws of conservation don’t necessarily apply all the time. The there are things like string theory, that basically states that matter isn’t really physical stuff , it’s 1 dimensional strings vibrating across branes, existing across a possible 11 dimensions, etc. Bottom line, is that physical matter isn’t really made of anything, just series, upon series of vibrating energy. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t understand string theory, just the peaks of the mountains. But I am in good company, because most people don’t, even people who work with it every day. But I got a rudimentary idea.
If this were true, then our perception of the physical world is just that, a perception. It’s not “stuff” it’s all just energy.
All this stuff is there to explain the missing key, called ironically enough the ‘God Particle’ or the Higgs-boson particle. This is what is thought to be responsible for gravity.

So is God just playing us like a fiddle giving us the illusion of physical matter all around us, or is there really physical matter and it’s made of stuff that didn’t previously exist? I don’t know. [/quote]

Ya know something else I realized the other day? I don’t actually know what you mean when you say God. Clearly what you mean is different than what Tirib and BC mean, and different than my understanding (Which I’ll still defend that the original concept is an omnipotent man who lives far above the earth).

So, what do you actually mean when you say God? Is there an image, anything like that?[/quote]

When I speak of God, I speak of the creator of all that exists, the beginning and end of all creation. BC is on the same page, I am not really sure what Tirib believes, nor could I fathom where he got his notions from, but they lack truth and honesty.
The truth is God is God, religion is a means by which to communicate and interact. I see religion analogous to a cell phone company to God. They all can make some sort of connection, but some are mere $5 Go-phones on Boost and then you have Verizon or T-mobile. They all drop the ball from time to time, but some have worse connections than others.

It doesn’t matter what you call God, Allah, Vishnu, etc. It’s still the same God as long as you understand creator of all, vs. something else. Even in ancient religions with many gods there was still one Mac Daddy God with power over all the other Gods and everything else.

Now Buddhism is kind of interesting. People claim it’s a Godless religion, but that’s not exactly true. They just don’t centralize it in one word ‘God’. They do believe in tapping in to the ‘force’ or ‘form’ of the universe to break the chains of Karma. This life force that’s all around and to unify with it is to escape the sufferings of life. It’s an interesting take.

1028

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
“come out of her my people”[/quote]

haha…Whore of Babylon…Really? >>>[/quote]You made this connection and I couldn’t care less what Dave Hunt says about eschatology. He did us a general service with “The Seduction of Christianity” many years ago, but citing him in connection with me is an illicit presumption that I will overlook because I don’t really have any reason not to.

The great awakening which directly led to the conviction and courage of the revolution was pickled in Westminster Calvinism. The point is this isn’t MY bizarre new idiosyncratic theology. It IS the Christian theology of our founding. If you ever dare to research that you will find it to be the case. Catholicism was widely abhorred and you will certainly find that to the be case as well. That doesn’t make me right and you wrong in itself. It simply illustrates that what I’m saying, far from being anything weird or new was shared by the preponderance of Christendom in our early days and lo and behold we fought the mighty British crown in it’s power.

I found it interesting that Capped “clearly” sees you and Pat as having different conceptions of God. I read Aquinas. You should read Charnock and watch the true God of the scriptures come alive. I most assuredly do not worship a book, but you most assuredly do worship a church that hides the living God from it’s victims. Come out of her Chris and Pat too. And Katz, and Sloth, and Jake and Dixie Dude and Matty and Cortes and if I forgot anybody it wasn’t intentional. You are all in my prayers.
[/quote]

You going to apologize or you going to keep referring to me as part of the Anti-Christ?

1029

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Ya know something else I realized the other day? I don’t actually know what you mean when you say God. >>>[/quote]If you have any interest in knowing what the bible actually teaches about who and what God is, just for your own education, seriously, read Stephen Charnock’s (1628-1680) “The Existence and Attributes of God”. No better treatment of that group of mind bending topics as such has ever been penned in my opinion. Here are some extracts http://www.puritansermons.com/charnock/charindx.htm You will gag and choke to be sure, but you will at least be able to say “hey, Trib is nuts, but now I know why. He believes that insane bible which does in fact actually teach what he’s been saying.”

If you wanna know what Pat’s God is like. Spend some time with Pat. He looks and acts just like him.
[/quote]

Puritanism? Really, that archaic joke of an abomination that killed possessed people? The one responsible for the darkest ages in North Eastern America a.k.a. the 17th century? Glad I do not live near you, lest I be hung.

“He believes that insane bible which does in fact actually teach what he’s been saying.” Which is why I am always able to back it up with Scripture, I just don’t pick and choose my favorite parts and toss away the rest.

1030

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But, back to our debate, Pat. What you’re saying now is really in line with what I was saying before – that the pieces dont add up, so far as we know. I just disagree that the only conclusion is that a sentient being outside our universe created it. I think its far more likely that we just dont understand matter/energy well enough.

[/quote]
Well I would say your right about that, but we never will really understand it as well as we could. But it’s problematic in two ways, matter and energy run on principals and laws. They are ‘guide’ by something and always follow the rules. Whether we know what those rules are or not is another story, but if you know everything about M/E, you’ll see they are not in control of themselves. They do what they do, because they were designed to behave that way. What it does not do is remove the element of contingency.
If not God, something must have God like properties to create and beget. Not only matter and energy but the principles they follow. If it is not so it must be shown by either logic, or science how governed entities can suddenly create or beget.
What you can’t do is simply say that a quark or a string is creative force that by chance produced material that didn’t previously exist. Cosmology is a deductively solid argument, people have been trying to pick it apart for centuries.

Hawking would say that it’s gravity that became the ultimate creative force with his beloved M-Theory (a hybrid of string theory), but he doesn’t say how gravity got there, or even what it is.
Funny thing, nobody knows what gravity is. Now unlocking the secret to gravity is the key to a vast trough of knowledge or the biggest dead end in the history of science. That’s what that big Hadron Collider in Switzerland is for to try and unlock the secrets of gravity.
[/quote]

Ok, it seems we’ve gotten to the end of the cosmology debate, where we both agree we dont know, and neither of us can prove or disprove god in this way, only to say that our not knowing leads us to different conclusions.

I’m interested, though, you’ve said a few times that the bible is a book of truth, not of fact (that even if the historic events in the bible are innacurate, it’s still about certain truths).

Exactly what truths do you find in the bible?[/quote]

I disagree. The debate can go on, but I will not belabor it. When you want to come back to it, I will be happy to oblige.

What truths in the Bible? That’s a big topic but I will cover some highlights.

  • God exists and is the creator of all. Whether he set forth a chain of events or whammied it in to existence, I don’t know, but it came from him.
  • There is good and evil in the world and it’s better to be on the side of good.
  • There is a ‘heaven’ and a ‘hell’, and one is preferable over the other.
  • Morality is better than immorality. â?? 10 commandments
  • Love is better than hate and we must love each other as ourselves, yes even tirib and yu gi oh!
  • What you believe and what you do matters.
  • God chose the Hebrews (for some unknown reason) to bring forth Jesus, his son (or himself incarnate) into the world.

I could go on and on, if there is something in particular you want to know, I will be happy to oblige.
If you look at the bible from the forest perspective is that the entirety of the OT was all in preparation to put himself on earth in human form. I guess he had a certain way he wanted it done so he chose them and formed them into a people from which he wanted to come. Even Jews would agree with that except for they don’t agree it was Jesus, they still await.

1031

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
“come out of her my people”[/quote]

haha…Whore of Babylon…Really? >>>[/quote]You made this connection and I couldn’t care less what Dave Hunt says about eschatology. He did us a general service with “The Seduction of Christianity” many years ago, but citing him in connection with me is an illicit presumption that I will overlook because I don’t really have any reason not to.

The great awakening which directly led to the conviction and courage of the revolution was pickled in Westminster Calvinism. The point is this isn’t MY bizarre new idiosyncratic theology. It IS the Christian theology of our founding. If you ever dare to research that you will find it to be the case. Catholicism was widely abhorred and you will certainly find that to the be case as well. That doesn’t make me right and you wrong in itself. It simply illustrates that what I’m saying, far from being anything weird or new was shared by the preponderance of Christendom in our early days and lo and behold we fought the mighty British crown in it’s power.

I found it interesting that Capped “clearly” sees you and Pat as having different conceptions of God. I read Aquinas. You should read Charnock and watch the true God of the scriptures come alive. I most assuredly do not worship a book, but you most assuredly do worship a church that hides the living God from it’s victims. Come out of her Chris and Pat too. And Katz, and Sloth, and Jake and Dixie Dude and Matty and Cortes and if I forgot anybody it wasn’t intentional. You are all in my prayers.
[/quote]

What you believe is heresy, I will not sacrifice the truth for lies. You ain’t special, God loves all of man kind, not just one special branch of Christians.

Prove the Catholic church practices self worship…Don’t say it, prove it. If you cannot then don’t say it again. That is only fair.

Actually, I would like to hear a statement of faith from you, what do you actually believe. Mine is the defined in the Nicene Creed. I allow that to speak as my statement of faith.

I would also like the answers to my questions from before…

1032

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< You going to apologize or you going to keep referring to me as part of the Anti-Christ?[/quote]I didn’t say you were part of THE anti christ. I used that phrase because it fits what I’m saying. I have not settled what I think of Rome’s participation in the last days but it IS an anti Christian church and for that I cannot and will not apologize.

1033

[quote]pat wrote:

I disagree. The debate can go on, but I will not belabor it. When you want to come back to it, I will be happy to oblige.[/quote]

Ok. What makes you believe that whatever created the universe had a specific intent?

1034

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Puritanism? Really, that archaic joke of an abomination that killed possessed people? The one responsible for the darkest ages in North Eastern America a.k.a. the 17th century? Glad I do not live near you, lest I be hung.

“He believes that insane bible which does in fact actually teach what he’s been saying.” Which is why I am always able to back it up with Scripture, I just don’t pick and choose my favorite parts and toss away the rest.[/quote]You are spectacularly clueless Pat.

[quote]pat wrote:<<< I will not sacrifice the truth for lies. >>>[/quote]You are doing that right now [quote]pat wrote:<<< You ain’t special, >>>[/quote]Not in the least and I have emphatically stated that a thousand times. [quote]pat wrote:<<< God loves all of man kind, not just one special branch of Christians.[/quote]<<< Nobody ever said anything about any branch of Christians.>>>[quote]pat wrote:<<< Prove the Catholic church practices self worship…Don’t say it, prove it. If you cannot then don’t say it again. That is only fair. >>>[/quote]You are entirely immune Pat. I have buried you in the clearest statements of scripture imaginable and you do not cease to demand what I have already given. The record here speaks for itself.[quote]pat wrote:<<< Actually, I would like to hear a statement of faith from you, what do you actually believe. >>>[/quote]Ask me anything, but for the one thousandth time again. I go along with MOST of this http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ [quote]pat wrote: <<< Mine is the defined in the Nicene Creed. I allow that to speak as my statement of faith.[/quote]I’ll take that. Very solid. I just define “catholic” different than you do. Maybe different that they did. (oh here it comes folks, just watch)[quote]pat wrote:<<< I would also like the answers to my questions from before…[/quote]I don’t know what you’re precisely referring to, but heretofore my answers have been totally lost on you. As the Lord lives that is intended as absolutely no offense, but is a simple statement of fact.

1035

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I disagree. The debate can go on, but I will not belabor it. When you want to come back to it, I will be happy to oblige.[/quote]

Ok. What makes you believe that whatever created the universe had a specific intent?[/quote]

After reading your comment we need to start a thread: “Non Christians don’t get it.”

And I guess they’re not supposed to get it. As I’ve sad multiple times, it’s about faith. As the Bible says “it is impossible to please God without faith.” Those who know not the Lord want proof and there will never be any proof, not the kind that you’re looking for. “Proof” is NOT pleasing to God. If there were proof then faith would not be needed and hence his statement would make no sense.

So, with that said all of this back and forth debate is pretty foolish isn’t it?

1036

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Puritanism? Really, that archaic joke of an abomination that killed possessed people? The one responsible for the darkest ages in North Eastern America a.k.a. the 17th century? Glad I do not live near you, lest I be hung.

“He believes that insane bible which does in fact actually teach what he’s been saying.” Which is why I am always able to back it up with Scripture, I just don’t pick and choose my favorite parts and toss away the rest.[/quote]You are spectacularly clueless Pat.

[quote]pat wrote:<<< I will not sacrifice the truth for lies. >>>[/quote]You are doing that right now [quote]pat wrote:<<< You ain’t special, >>>[/quote]Not in the least and I have emphatically stated that a thousand times. [quote]pat wrote:<<< God loves all of man kind, not just one special branch of Christians.[/quote]<<< Nobody ever said anything about any branch of Christians.>>>[quote]pat wrote:<<< Prove the Catholic church practices self worship…Don’t say it, prove it. If you cannot then don’t say it again. That is only fair. >>>[/quote]You are entirely immune Pat. I have buried you in the clearest statements of scripture imaginable and you do not cease to demand what I have already given. The record here speaks for itself.[quote]pat wrote:<<< Actually, I would like to hear a statement of faith from you, what do you actually believe. >>>[/quote]Ask me anything, but for the one thousandth time again. I go along with MOST of this http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ [quote]pat wrote: <<< Mine is the defined in the Nicene Creed. I allow that to speak as my statement of faith.[/quote]I’ll take that. Very solid. I just define “catholic” different than you do. Maybe different that they did. (oh here it comes folks, just watch)[quote]pat wrote:<<< I would also like the answers to my questions from before…[/quote]I don’t know what you’re precisely referring to, but heretofore my answers have been totally lost on you. As the Lord lives that is intended as absolutely no offense, but is a simple statement of fact.
[/quote]
Trib,
You might find this interesting and then again you may not.

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/0.1/solved.htm

1037

Trib,
I have been trying to affirm all that is true that you believe and point out that the practice of the Christian life is very similar between you and I, but there is one thing that I find truly repulsive about Calvinism, so I have one more question that I will pester you with. If it is pre-ordained as to who will be saved and who will not and in fact everything is pre-ordained, then did God ordain the fall of mankind? If He is sovreign in the way Calvinist/reformed churches teach that He is then it must be so, no? If you can straighten me out on this please do so, because if this is the reality that God ordained the fall of man, then… Please by all means explain to me how this fits.

1038

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
Trib,
I have been trying to affirm all that is true that you believe and point out that the practice of the Christian life is very similar between you and I, but there is one thing that I find truly repulsive about Calvinism, so I have one more question that I will pester you with. If it is pre-ordained as to who will be saved and who will not and in fact everything is pre-ordained, then did God ordain the fall of mankind? If He is sovreign in the way Calvinist/reformed churches teach that He is then it must be so, no? If you can straighten me out on this please do so, because if this is the reality that God ordained the fall of man, then… Please by all means explain to me how this fits.[/quote]

Basically God commissioned evil. He made some men to do evil things…on purpose. That is Tirib’s God.

1039

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
You Christians and your cowardly semantics… =/[/quote]

As he hides behind a keyboard and an anonymous name and attacks our religion. You gotta love the Internet. It makes the weak strong and the truly cowardly brave.

You’re a funny little guy.

:)[/quote]

As oppossed to what you’ve been doing?[/quote]

I’m defending Christianity and the American way—I’m the good guy :slight_smile:
[/quote]

lolz

1040

This is something I found that is just too juicy to not point out. The bible gives 2 accounts of Jesus’ genealogy. One in MAT 1:6-16 and one in LUK 3:23-31. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam.

Here’s where it all falls apart;

The ONLY name in common (excluding Jesus) is JOSEPH, the step father of Jesus. There is just… no excuse for such… I don’t even know a word for failure of such a magnitude. I mean, even 1700 years ago I’d like to think SOMEONE at the council of Nicaea would have the intelligence to spot this. And exactly what the hell was God doing during all this? This seems like something God would’ve (or at least SHOULD have) done something about.

Another thing, the purpose of these genealogies is to establish Jesus as the prophet foretold in the old testament, but since Joseph wasn’t the father of Jesus, BOTH genealogies are completely pointless.

So much for the bible’s credibility. =/