Posted by ato on 4/15/2009, 2:02 pm
41.212.200.5
"The seven day creation is not literal, there are illogical and unscientific errors that would not have been apparent to the authors but which are highlighted on this page and by science. The shape of the Earth is not flat. The Sun does not revolve around the Earth. The creation of light and the sun happened independent of each other, and there were 'days' before the sun was created for the Earth to rotate around. The order in which animals, plants and other elements of life appear in Genesis contradict the order that appears in the fossil record and the order of creation of the stars, the sun, etc, also contradict what we know scientifically. The logic is flawed behind the 'day of rest', an all-powerful God does not need rest. In short, the separation of creation into a seven day period is a useless and outdated creation story riddled with errors.
Genesis is written by fallible Human beings, not God, and is proven to be a false record of creation. It also shows many symptoms of being a piecemeal, fragmented myth that has been edited and rewritten over time so that it hardly even makes internal sense. It contains no moral teachings and nothing educational. It is an irredeemable anachronism that we ever teach our children it's pointless myths and retain it as part of Christianity. It should be purged."
The Adam and Eve story and the Noah's Ark story both suffer from a problem of incest. It is not possible for a species to develop from such a tiny number of people.
"Due to the non viable offspring that result from incest, the Adam and Eve story cannot be the literal whole truth. When a Christian next time relies on the urban myth of "Christian Family Values" then wander how they would explain to someone the big question of "What happened after the Flood?" The only moral escape route is to admit that the Adam and Eve story is a metaphor. The only biologically correct explanation known is that we evolved slowly from lower animals so that incest was never a problem."
Morals of the story
"Punishing one person for the actions of another is immoral. If we use the Adam and Eve story to explain evil, suffering and death then we are saying that God is immoral and not a forgiving God. Judging Adam and Eve even when they didn't know the difference between good and evil, when they didn't know it was wrong to disobey and couldn't understand that the serpent tricked them, is also immoral. The Adam and Eve story is not a suitable moral story for children nor is it a valid theodicy to explain evil."
Virgin Birth:
"The Prophecy of the virgin birth appears in Matthew 1:22-23. Matthew wrote this seventy years after Jesus Christ was born (35-40 years after he died). Up until that point no other text mentions Jesus' virgin birth. He quotes Isaiah 7:14 which was written 700 years before Jesus was born - thus claiming it was a sign, a prediction of the Messiah's virgin birth.
But there is a serious problem. Matthew states that, due to prophecy, it is true that Jesus was a male line descendant of King David, and presents a geneology at the beginning of his gospel tracing Jesus' lineage through Joseph. Matthew, apparently, like Luke and Paul and the rest of the early Christians, did not believe in a virgin birth. There are two theories that I see explain how this contradictory state of affairs occurred. (1) The first is that a Septuagint mistranslation of the word "virgin" instead of "young woman" caused the discrepancy. This means that the prophecy is not that someone called Immanuel will be born of a virgin, but merely that someone called Immanuel will be born. In the original context of the story, this makes a lot of sense. (2) The second theory is that Matthew, writing for a Roman gentile audience in Greek, included popular myths surrounding sons of gods, who in Roman mythology were frequently said to be born of virgins. In either case, it is clear that Matthew's prophecy of a virgin birth was a mistake, and modern Bible's actually include a footnote in Matthew pointing out that the virgin birth is probably a mistranslation. "
From "Matthew, the fraud (click for complete text)" by Vexen
Luke tells us that Caesar called for a census and Joseph and Mary had to return to their town of origin, Bethlehem, until the census was complete. But at no point did the Romans require people to return to their place of birth for a census. Matthew, the only other gospel including information on this, does not include any of these aspects of Jesus' birth, and merely states that he was born in Bethlehem whilst Herod was king. All of Luke's insertions about singing angels, barns and mangers are not mentioned in Matthew's version.
Further problems exist in the contrasting Luke/Matthew accounts of Jesus' birth. Luke claims that Jesus was born when Quirinius, a roman official, was the governor of Syria. This happened during or shortly after 6ad. Matthew however, claims that Jesus was born whilst Herod the Great reigned over Judea, and Herod died in 5 or 4 BC. There is a huge 10/11 year gap between these two dates, and either Luke or Matthew were wrong. Given Luke's track record, and that fact that historians accept the date of 4ad for Jesus' birth, it is likely that Luke was (once again) wrong.
The Guiding star
One of Matthew's plotlines is the three visitors from the East who visit the newborn Jesus. They say that a star came up in the East, however no other people in the story appear to notice this. It must have been a relatively unnoticeable event, a fairly faint star, only noticed by people who study the stars. The three visitors are called 'Star Readers' in Matthew 2:1. However no other astrologers across the world at that time document this phenomenon.
King Herod: The killing of every male baby
Matthew 2:16-17 tells us of King Herod's killing of every male child. This should have been mentioned elsewhere, such as in Josephus' detailed accounts of the times. But no-one else mentions it except Luke! Many other myths, including more ancient Roman ones, had an event where all the male children were killed, and the famous Romulus and Remus story is (once again) a good, famous example. Luke, once again, was borrowing and adding pagan myth stories to his account.
The Messiah?
Christianity is centered around the Jewish rabbi Yeshua Nazaret, known as Jesus. Paul is quoted many times of talking of Jesus and calling him the Messiah, and this seems like the likely start of Christianity - Paul's students of Christ. This chapter shows that Paul was mistaken and Jesus could not have been the Messiah. Over 2000 years the Jews have produced much literature, and continue to do so, stating the same thing: That Yeshua (Jesus) was not the Messiah.
Prophecy of the Messiah
The Old Testament predicts that the Messiah was to be called Emmanuel (Isaiah 7:14), and does not mention a Holy Spirit or a virgin birth. Emmanuel means "with God", but Jesus was instead called Yeshua, and was never called Emmanuel until a few decades after his death.
The Messiah, in scripture, will free the Israelites from oppression and secure a land for them to live in in the same generation (Amos 9:14-15, Mark 13:24-30, and Matthew 16:27-28, however that did not happen for a few hundred years and only gradually.
It was also stated that the Messiah has to be a direct male-line descendant of King David - this would not be true if it was the Holy Spirit who impregnated Mary because he would have no ascendants other than God. However despite this, God still inspired two completely useless and contradictory genealogies to be written into his New Testament.
Matthew's gospel starts with a record of Jesus' genealogy that is introduced with the words 'Jesus Christ, a descendant of David, a descendant of Abraham'. The family tree he gives is however, only of Jesus' step father, Joseph. It is Christian mythology that the Holy Spirit can impregnate virgins, however Matthew seems not to know or believe it. He, as we have seen, does not know or write about Jesus' virgin birth, and he gives Joseph's family tree as proof that Jesus was descended from David. Matthew must have believed that Joseph was Jesus' father, not the Holy Spirit (which was not invented until later in Christianities history).
Luke's genealogy is a completely different one, giving 43 generations from David to Joseph (in contrast to Matthew's 28) and using an entirely different set of names. It was tradition only to list family members that are thought important... but surely Matthew and Luke would have at least picked one in common! At the very least there must be 71 generations between them (unless a large amount of incest has been occurring, mixing generations and such).
It seems that Jesus himself, nor Mary, knew of his virgin birth, or even of his supposed divinity. Likewise Jesus never said he was the Messiah. In the Bible there are many Messiah's, and at that point in time they were common occurrences.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread